Heard of Uber Eats’ Priority Fees? These priority fees are a business strategy for several food delivery apps, not merely Uber Eats, so it would be fair for the business and the consumer who ordered the food.
Road traffic can get unnervingly ridiculous nowadays. These food delivery apps are meant to make things convenient, like getting the food you crave in a few minutes. But, when traffic kicks in, things change.
This is why there are Priority Fees, or giving the options for customers to get their orders in the shortest time possible, but they need to pay more.
According to the official website of Uber, “As you may already notice, users will be able to choose between three different delivery options before placing an order: ‘Priority’, ‘Standard’, and ‘No Rush’. If you select the Priority Delivery option, a Priority Fee will be added to the delivery fee so your order is dropped off first in the event of a batched delivery. You can see this under the fee section as well as in an info icon at the bottom of the check-out screen.”
The other options are Standard and No-Rush, with the third being the cheapest.
Now, a most recent class action lawsuit is alleging that Uber Eats, yes, Uber Eats, is scamming, duping, and tricking customers with these priority fees.
It is claiming and stating that when customers go check-out their items on Uber Eats, they are told to pay more if they need to get the food faster. But, that’s how things are meant to be, right?
This “direct to you” advantage is a way for Uber Eats to give the best service without losing money.
The suit is claiming that Uber never – take note, never – informs its drivers which orders are priority, making the perk null and void. Like still getting orders after several minutes?
According to the lawsuit, Uber Eats instructs drivers to pick up other batch orders before delivering priority orders, making the option useless.
At the same time, after those other orders, some drivers also deliver items on other apps before delivering the priority order.
Dozens of customers who complained are name-dropped on the lawsuit, which also detailed drivers who made detours, picked-up other orders, or made deliveries for other apps mid-route, even if their customers paid more to be prioritized.
“This case sits at the intersection of deceptive advertising and the fine print companies use to evade accountability,” Elizabeth Aniskevich, a senior counsel, said. “Uber wants to profit from a premium fee without actually delivering anything extra. We intend to hold Uber accountable for its failure to deliver on its promise.”
This isn’t the first-time Uber Eats has come under fire. Earlier this year, another lawsuit alleged that they charged customers for its subscription platform, Uber One, without showing an easy way for them to stop recurring charges anytime.
This lawsuit claims that Uber Eats has violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as common-law fraud. Prosecutors seek damages, restitution, and an injunction barring Uber from continuing to advertise the fee as a “direct to you” guarantee. Share your thoughts when you open your RSF account tonight!