Tong Sues Uber Over Allegedly Making Free Trials Hard to Cancel
Negative option marketing has quietly become one of the most controversial practices in modern consumer commerce, especially in the subscription economy. At its core, negative option marketing is when a business interprets a consumer’s silence or inaction as permission to continue charging them. The most common version shows up as a “free trial” that automatically converts into a paid subscription unless the consumer affirmatively cancels. While this model is not illegal by default, it sits on a legal knife’s edge, and when companies cross certain lines, regulators tend to respond aggressively.
The lawsuit brought by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, alongside the Federal Trade Commission and more than twenty other states and counties, against Uber Technologies shines a bright light on how negative option marketing can go wrong. According to the complaint, Uber’s Uber One subscription was marketed as a way for consumers to save money on rides and deliveries, often through the lure of a free trial. The problem alleged by regulators is not simply that the trial continued unless canceled, but that consumers were allegedly misled at multiple stages of the process, from enrollment to billing to cancellation.
Negative option marketing becomes unlawful when it is deceptive, unfair, or obscures material terms. Under federal law, particularly the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, companies must clearly and conspicuously disclose the key terms of any negative option offer. That includes the fact that charges will begin automatically, when billing will start, how much will be charged, and how a consumer can cancel. The law also requires express informed consent before billing and a cancellation mechanism that is straightforward and easy to use. States, including Connecticut, reinforce these protections through unfair trade practice statutes that often mirror or expand on federal standards.
In the Uber case, regulators allege a pattern that goes beyond a lawful free trial. The complaint claims that consumers were charged before their trial periods ended, that promised savings were overstated or failed to materialize, and that cancellation was made unnecessarily difficult. When a consumer has to navigate multiple screens, repeated prompts, or unclear instructions just to stop charges, regulators increasingly view that friction as evidence of deception rather than mere inconvenience. Similarly, charging consumers earlier than disclosed or before a trial ends strikes directly at the heart of what makes a trial “free” in the first place.
Attorney General Tong’s public statement reflects a broader enforcement trend. Regulators are no longer satisfied with fine print disclosures that technically mention automatic renewal somewhere in the process. They are looking at the entire consumer experience, asking whether an ordinary user truly understood what they were signing up for and whether they could reasonably exit without undue burden. If the answer is no, negative option marketing shifts from being a lawful business model to a potential violation carrying restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.
What makes this lawsuit especially significant is its scale and timing. With trial scheduled for 2027, the case sends a long-term signal to subscription-based companies that enforcement scrutiny is not fading. As more businesses rely on recurring revenue, the legal expectation is clear: free trials must actually be free, savings claims must be accurate, billing must align with disclosures, and cancellation must be as easy as enrollment. Negative option marketing survives under the law only when transparency and consumer choice are real, not theoretical.
CONTACT US IF YOU’ NEED A LAWYER’VE BEEN INJURED
Brenda K
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“My husband and I recently went to the office. We wanted to have a will made. We needed revisions and chose a different option.”
Brendan Kru
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake did a great job of putting together estate paperwork for my father. He was very professional and thorough in his work.”
Chris Prigg
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Very knowledgeable and professional. Referred to him by a friend and had a great experience. Highly recommend.”
Ariel Ventura
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“I recently worked with Attorney Jake Dreszler to draft my will, and I couldn’t be more pleased with the experience.”
Rita Levin
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake is a fantastic lawyer and super knowledgeable. He is very kind and professional in his dealings.”
Debra Kohn
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake is a very professional individual. He takes what he does very seriously and I couldn’t recommend a better lawyer.”
Bobby Malinick
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake is an excellent lawyer for what you need.”
Larry Koslofsky
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Professional and highly recommended.”
Lori Raut
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“I highly recommend Attorney Dreszler for all your legal needs. Jake is very smart, attentive, and protective of his clients.”
Lori Raut
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“I highly recommend Attorney Dreszler for all your legal needs. Jake is very smart, attentive, and protective of his clients.”
Joseph Whiteman
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake is an extremely good attorney. He always gets back to you very promptly and even shares small updates and insights.”
Jose J Rodriguez
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake provided excellent professional service in preparing our wills, powers of attorney, and health proxies.”
Ken R
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“I have known Jake for years, well before he became an attorney. I was always impressed with his thoughtfulness and professionalism.”
Zachary Scura
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Attorney Dreszler is extremely knowledgeable and well suited to help with legal advice or representation.”
Joseph P
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“A very detail-oriented attorney who will do right by his clients. Diligent, respectful, and highly professional.”
Karla Dulin
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Attorney Dreszler is an outstanding attorney. He is incredibly knowledgeable, responsive, and professional. Highly recommend.”
Faith
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Would recommend. It’s obvious he loves what he does, and it shows in his work.”
Mayer Miles
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
“Jake was referred to me by a good friend. He handled my will and trust for a reasonable price and explained everything clearly and understandably.”