Quebec court authorizes Uber Eats service-fee class action

The Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class action challenging how Uber Eats discloses service fees and promotes delivery benefits to Uber One subscribers, finding an arguable consumer-protection case that can proceed to a determination on the merits.

Justice Enrico Forlini’s August 28, 2026 decision in Option Consommateurs c. Uber Technologies inc., 2026 QCCS 3337 permits claims for compensation, punitive damages, declarations and a permanent injunction to move forward. It does not establish Uber’s liability, award refunds or require an immediate change to the platform.

The defendants maintained that they had serious defences on the merits, while leaving assessment of the authorization criteria to the court. That procedural position was not an admission of the alleged wrongdoing.

Who is included and what is alleged

The authorized class consists of Quebec residents who, from June 25, 2022 onward, placed a delivery order through Uber Eats and paid service fees. The Uber One subgroup consists of members of that class who were Uber One subscribers from that date onward.

Option consommateurs was appointed representative, with Félix Bydal as the designated member through whom the consumer organization brought the proceeding. Bydal had used Uber Eats since 2019 and subscribed intermittently to Uber One since approximately July 2022.

The claim targets Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Canada Inc., Uber Portier Canada Inc. and Uber Castor Canada Inc. It alleges that the platform presents delivery fees as the cost of delivery, then adds mandatory service fees whose exact amount is disclosed only near the end of the purchase.

According to the authorization application, those charges appear under a combined taxes-and-other-fees heading and are not consistently identified or sufficiently disclosed earlier in the transaction. The applicants allege that they effectively constitute additional delivery charges.

For Uber One subscribers, the claim also challenges representations of free delivery on eligible orders when service fees are still charged. Bydal’s allegations included $153.14 in service fees and a pricing display that, he said, did not clearly communicate their nature and amount.

One arguable legal basis was enough

Forlini emphasized the limited screening role at authorization. The applicants needed to show a defensible case rather than prove that their claims would succeed. The four statutory conditions cover common questions, an arguable claim, the practical need for collective proceedings and adequate representation.

The court found common questions because the challenged conduct arose from the platform’s allegedly uniform and standardized operation. Deciding whether its price presentation was misleading, and whether Uber One’s contractual promises were honoured, could advance the claims of class members together.

For the arguable-case analysis, the judge focused on article 219 of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits false or misleading representations. The analysis considers the overall impression conveyed to an inexperienced, credulous consumer rather than a detailed examination of every term.

On the allegations, combining the service fees with taxes and other fees could confuse consumers about the charges’ true nature and obscure that Uber itself imposed them. The court also found it arguable that a promise of free delivery or savings associated with Uber One was contradicted by the alleged pricing structure. The subgroup’s contractual-liability argument could also proceed.

Because that consumer-protection theory could support the relief sought, Forlini did not separately determine whether every other pleaded statutory ground was arguable. The Competition Act allegations and other consumer-law provisions remain among the common questions; authorization was not a ruling that Uber had breached them.

Damages and pricing orders remain claims to be decided

The action seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be determined and punitive damages of $500 per class member, with an additional $100 for each Uber One subgroup member. Those figures are requested amounts, not entitlements created by the judgment.

The court explained that a simple consumer-law violation is not, by itself, enough for punitive damages. The allegations of deliberate or seriously careless disregard of consumer rights nevertheless made that claim arguable at this stage. Its merits remained to be determined.

Option consommateurs also seeks an order requiring a complete, clear estimate of delivery and order costs from the merchant-selection page throughout the ordering process. Forlini considered that part of the requested injunction sufficiently precise for authorization. He questioned the enforceability of a further proposed prohibition on misleading representations or omissions, but concluded it was premature to exclude it at the screening stage.

The estimated class of thousands, modest individual amounts and difficulty identifying members supported collective proceedings. The organization’s resources, experience, purpose and absence of a conflict of interests supported its appointment as representative.

The court designated Montreal as the judicial district and reserved approval of notices and their distribution for a subsequent judgment. Its August order required an application concerning publication of notices within 60 days. Costs were left to follow the outcome of the proceeding, except that the defendants must bear the costs associated with publishing notices.