Federal Trade Commission v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-03477-JST (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 275
The parties raise a number of discovery disputes in ECF No. 275. The Court already
addressed Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions. ECF No. 277. Here the Court discusses
the remaining issues.
A. Rog 5
Uber says it will supplement its response by October 9, 2026, rendering the dispute moot.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a status report within seven days, advising if
rog 5 is still in dispute.
B. RFP 61
This RFP is a doozy. Take a look at what it asks for:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 61: For a random sample of 10%
of all U.S.-based consumers who, during the time period from January
1, 2021, through August 31, 2026, used Uber at least once (including
both users who were enrolled in an Uber One subscription or free trial
and users who were not enrolled in an Uber One subscription or free
trial), documents and data sufficient to show:
a. A unique user ID (e.g., “hashed_user_uuid”) that is linkable
to the unique user IDs previously produced in this matter;
b. The consumer’s Uber rides, Including (A) whether, at the
time of the ride, the consumer was enrolled in an Uber One
subscription or free trial; (B) the date and time in seconds of
Case 4:25-cv-03477-JST Document 281 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
the request for the ride; (C) the type of ride requested (e.g.,
Priority, UberX, etc.); (D) whether the ride was reserved or
scheduled in advance; (E) geocoordinates for the ride’s origin;
(F) geocoordinates for the ride’s destination; (G) trip distance
in miles; (H) trip time in minutes; (I) an identifier for whether
the ride was subject to surge pricing and a variable that reports
the effect of surge pricing on the ride price (either as a multiple
of the base price or an adder in dollars); (J) all components of
price, including listed price, actual price paid, all fees
associated with the ride, any Uber One discount applied, and
any other discount applied; (K) all other data that Uber
contends would be necessary or appropriate for a difference-
in-differences analysis of ride prices for consumers who are
enrolled in Uber One and consumers who are not;
c. The consumer’s Uber Eats orders, Including (A) whether,
at the time of the order, the consumer was enrolled in an Uber
One subscription or free trial; (B) the date and time in seconds
of the order; (C) merchant ID; (D) merchant type; (E) whether
the order was reserved or scheduled in advance; (F)
geocoordinates of the merchant pick-up location; (G)
geocoordinates of the drop-off destination; (H) delivery
distance in miles; (I) delivery time in minutes; (J)
characteristics of the order that affect total price, including
total number of items ordered, number of food items ordered,
number of drink items ordered, and number of paid add-ons;
(K) all components of price, including listed price, actual price
paid, all fees associated with the order including delivery fees,
any Uber One discount applied, and any other discount
applied; (L) all other data that Uber contends would be
necessary or appropriate for a difference-in-differences
analysis of Uber Eats order prices for consumers who are
enrolled in Uber One and consumers who are not;
d. Documents and data sufficient to verify that the data is a
10% sample drawn from the target population using simple
random sampling methods; and
e. A data dictionary defining Each term or element in the
dataset in sufficient detail for someone unfamiliar with the
dataset to understand it.
Is this information relevant? Oh, sure. This information would allow the FTC to
determine with incredible precision the price benefits (or lack of benefit) of being a member of
Uber One, after controlling for all other factors that affect pricing. But Uber says this RFP seeks
information about billions of transactions, and just by reading the RFP and considering the
granular level of data it seeks, you can see that estimate is likely correct.
The real problem with the FTC’s motion to compel on RFP 61 is that the FTC filed it
about six weeks before the close of fact discovery. ECF No. 255 (Fact discovery cutoff is
Case 4:25-cv-03477-JST Document 281 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
November 16, 2026); ECF No. 275 (FTC filed this motion on October 2, 2026). Had the FTC
filed this motion to compel earlier in fact discovery, the Court might have granted it. But this is a
humongous amount of data to demand that Uber pull together with six weeks left in fact
discovery. This crushing burden in the final weeks of fact discovery, which could so easily have
been avoided had the FTC brought this motion to compel earlier, is not proportional to the needs
of the case. The FTC’s motion to compel is DENIED.
C. RFPs 62 and 63
Per the parties’ agreement, the Court ORDERS Uber to produce data and information
responsive to RFPs 62 and 63 by November 1, 2026.
D. Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions
It looks like the parties are still meeting and conferring about these issues. The Court
ORDERS the parties to file a status report within seven days.
E. Motion to Seal
The motion to seal at ECF No. 276 is GRANTED and Exhibit C is ordered sealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03477-JST Document 281 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3