The Justice Department sued Uber in September 2025
The Department of Justice alleged that Uber violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act through practices affecting riders with service animals and riders who use stowable wheelchairs. Among the allegations were ride denials, cancellation-related charges and failures to make reasonable modifications for passengers with disabilities.
The government sought injunctive relief, civil penalties and monetary relief for affected individuals. Those allegations are claims in pending litigation, not findings that Uber has been proven liable.
Uber tried to dismiss the case and the lawsuit continued
According to the Justice Department’s case page, the United States opposed Uber’s motion to dismiss in February 2026. In March 2026, the court denied the motion, allowing the case to proceed.
A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a judgment on the ultimate merits. It means the case survived that procedural challenge and the government’s claims could continue through litigation.
Why Uber Pet is legally different
Uber Pet is an optional product for riders traveling with ordinary pets. Uber’s own materials say service animals are permitted without an additional pet charge regardless of whether Uber Pet is selected. In other words, a passenger with a qualifying service animal is not buying a premium pet accommodation.
That is the misconception worth correcting. A driver’s willingness to accept ordinary pets and the legal treatment of a service animal are not the same question.
Uber’s service-animal policy is explicit
Uber’s U.S. service-animal policy states that drivers generally may not deny service because a rider is traveling with a service animal. The policy also says allergies, religious objections or a generalized fear of animals do not create exceptions to the obligation described in the policy.
The DOJ lawsuit is therefore not based on an absence of written policy. The dispute concerns alleged real-world denials and whether Uber’s practices and responses satisfied federal disability law.
Wheelchair access is part of the same federal case
The government’s allegations also concern passengers who use stowable wheelchairs. The issue is not limited to specialized wheelchair-accessible vehicles. A folding or stowable mobility device can raise questions about reasonable modification, driver conduct and whether the passenger was denied an otherwise available ride.
That makes the case broader than a service-dog dispute. It tests how an app-based transportation platform implements disability-access obligations through a large decentralized driver network.
The practical point for riders is simple
A service animal is not a pet for purposes of the accommodation at issue. Selecting a pet-friendly ride should not be treated as the prerequisite for traveling with a qualifying service animal. Riders who experience a denial may also have app records, cancellation records, messages and receipts that document what happened.
The federal lawsuit remains a useful public example because it separates the platform’s written accessibility rules from the question of how consistently those rules are followed in actual rides.
Sources
