The complaint, submitted by U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian, Chief of the Civil Division Pamela T. Johann, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Keough, lays out the federal government’s claims that Uber’s operations have failed to comply with requirements under Title III of the ADA. The case has been assigned civil number 3:25-cv-7731, and the government has demanded a jury trial.
The Legal Foundation
At the core of the complaint is Title III of the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–89, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations and services operated by private entities. The regulations implementing these provisions, including those found in 49 C.F.R. Part 37, apply directly to transportation services such as ride-sharing platforms. The Department of Justice contends that Uber, as a dominant player in the for-hire vehicle market, falls squarely within the scope of these requirements. They state Uber “routinely refuse to serve individuals with disabilities, including people with service animals and stowable wheelchairs.”
According to the filing, Uber has allegedly failed to provide equal access and treatment to passengers with disabilities. While details of the specific practices at issue will be further developed through litigation, past disputes with Uber have centered on surcharges, wait times, and inadequate vehicle accommodations for passengers who use wheelchairs or require additional assistance.
A History of Accessibility Disputes
This is not the first time Uber has faced federal or state challenges regarding accessibility. Disability rights advocates have long argued that the company’s platform design, driver policies, and service fees disadvantage riders with mobility, vision, or hearing impairments. In 2021, Uber reached a settlement with the DOJ to resolve allegations that it had charged discriminatory wait-time fees to passengers with disabilities who needed more time to board vehicles. That settlement required Uber to pay millions in damages and to reform its policies.
The new case, however, signals that federal authorities believe ongoing or additional violations continue to exist. By seeking court intervention under Title III of the ADA, the DOJ aims not only to remedy alleged harms to individuals with disabilities but also to set binding legal precedents that could shape the broader ride-hailing industry.
Uber’s Position
As of now, Uber has not yet filed its response to the complaint. In previous matters, the company has maintained that it is committed to accessibility and inclusion, citing investments in wheelchair-accessible vehicles, expanded driver training, and in-app features for riders with vision or hearing impairments. Uber has also pointed to partnerships with third-party transportation providers to increase coverage for riders requiring specialized vehicles.
Still, critics argue that these measures fall short of full ADA compliance. They contend that accessibility features often vary by city, are insufficient in scale, or rely too heavily on independent contractors who are not adequately trained or incentivized to serve riders with disabilities.
The Stakes for the DOJ and Uber
For the Justice Department, the lawsuit represents both a legal and symbolic effort to enforce one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws. The ADA, enacted in 1990, was intended to eliminate barriers and guarantee full participation for people with disabilities across all facets of public life. Transportation remains a cornerstone of that vision, and the DOJ’s case suggests that federal officials view technology-driven mobility services as subject to the same obligations as traditional taxi operators and transit providers.
For Uber, the litigation poses potential financial, reputational, and operational risks. A court-ordered judgment against the company could result in monetary penalties, injunctive relief requiring sweeping changes to its platform, and heightened federal oversight. Even if Uber settles before trial, the terms could involve expensive compliance mandates and closer DOJ monitoring in the years to come.
Broader Industry Implications
The case also carries broader implications for the gig economy and transportation network companies at large. Lyft, Uber’s main competitor, has faced similar lawsuits and settlements over ADA compliance. Smaller regional ride-hailing platforms, as well as food and package delivery services, may also be watching closely to see whether federal courts extend accessibility requirements to their business models.
Legal experts note that this lawsuit could clarify how ADA Title III applies to companies that rely on app-based interfaces and independent contractors rather than traditional fleets and employees. The outcome may determine whether these companies are treated more like taxi operators, which have long been subject to ADA rules, or as technology providers with looser regulatory obligations.
Next Steps
The case is still in its early stages. Uber will have the opportunity to file an answer or motion to dismiss, after which the parties will likely engage in discovery, depositions, and pre-trial motions. Given the DOJ’s demand for a jury trial, the matter could eventually be presented to a jury of citizens in the Northern District of California. However, like many civil rights cases against large corporations, it may also be resolved through settlement negotiations.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the filing reinforces the DOJ’s ongoing commitment to enforcing the ADA and signals to the entire transportation sector that accessibility remains a top federal priority. For millions of Americans with disabilities, the stakes go beyond one company’s policies: they involve the broader principle of equal access to the mobility services that increasingly shape modern life.