Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies From time to time, we are a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2025 and March 31, 2026, we had recorded aggregate liabilities of $2.1 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively, of which $215 million and $224 million, respectively, relate to non-income tax matters in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of our legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable. We are currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, alleged background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. We have existing litigation, including class actions, Private Attorney General Act lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. We may receive misclassification claims in several jurisdictions across the United States for the foreseeable future. With respect to our outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management's expectations, our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Driver Classification California Attorney General Lawsuit In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity. On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The complaint alleges drivers are misclassified, and seeks an injunction and monetary damages related to the alleged competitive advantage caused by the alleged misclassification of drivers. On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order, prohibiting us from classifying drivers as independent contractors and from violating various wage and hour laws. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. On October 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and we filed a petition for review of the decision with the California Supreme Court. The petition was based upon the passage of Proposition 22 by California voters in November 2020, and requested that the Court of Appeal opinion be vacated because AB5’s application to Uber was superseded by Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was a state ballot initiative that provides a framework for drivers that use platforms like ours to qualify as independent workers. As a result of the passage of Proposition 22, drivers are able to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law, and we and our competitors are required to comply with the provisions of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020. The California Supreme Court declined the petition for review on February 10, 2021. The lawsuit was returned to the trial court following the appellate proceedings on February 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the California Attorney General, Uber and Lyft filed a stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction with the trial court. On April 16, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting the stipulation. Although the preliminary injunction has been dissolved, the lawsuit remains ongoing relating to claims by the California Attorney General for periods prior to enactment of Proposition 22. The parties petitioned to stay this matter pending coordination with other California employment related matters, which was granted and a coordination judge was assigned. The case had been stayed pending appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, however the California Supreme Court denied review on January 17, 2024, and the case was remitted back to the Superior Court on January 29, 2024 for further proceedings. On July 2, 2024, the Superior Court lifted the stay. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. The ultimate resolution of these matters is uncertain and the amount accrued is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. Swiss Social Security Rulings Several Swiss administrative bodies have issued decisions in which they classify Drivers or Couriers as employees of Uber for social security or labor purposes. We are challenging them before the Social Security and Administrative Tribunals. On March 21, 2023, the Federal Tribunal ruled that Drivers who have used the Uber App in 2014 qualify as employees for social security purposes. In October 2024, the Social Security authority decided that the changes to our 2023 model are not sufficient to classify Drivers as independent contractors. We have filed an appeal against this decision. During the first quarter of 2025, we separately have resolved the social security dispute for Drivers for the years 2014 to July 2020 with the SVA Zürich authority. We continue to litigate the amounts of social security contributions at issue through 2022. On June 3, 2022, the Federal Tribunal issued two rulings by which both Drivers and Couriers in the Canton of Geneva are classified as employees of Uber B.V., Uber Portier B.V. and Uber Switzerland GmbH. Following the ruling of the Federal Tribunal on Eats, the Social Security authorities claimed the payment of social security contributions since the launch of Uber Eats. We are litigating this claim. The ultimate resolution of the matters before the social security authorities is uncertain and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. URSSAF Assessment In December 2024, the Social Security authorities in France (“URSSAF”) issued a letter of observations to Uber, proposing a reassessment of social security contributions. In February 2025, Uber submitted a formal response, strongly contesting the basis of URSSAF's position. URSSAF replied with an assessment in June 2025, which Uber has appealed and vigorously challenged. The ultimate resolution of the matter is uncertain and the amount accrued is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. Other Driver Classification Matters Additionally, we have received other lawsuits and governmental inquiries in other jurisdictions, and anticipate future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging our classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. We believe that our current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. State Unemployment Taxes New Jersey Department of Labor In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against Uber and its subsidiaries . Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL has provided several assessments from February through October 2021. We have submitted payment for the principal revised amount of the assessment and have since reached agreement on and paid the remaining amounts allegedly owed from 2014 through 2018. In 2023, the NJDOL initiated an audit for the period of 2019 through the second quarter of 2023. In December 2024, the NJDOL issued a preliminary assessment, which Uber immediately disputed and requested a Hearing for Redetermination of the assessment. The case is currently being litigated before the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. The ultimate resolution of the NJDOL matters is uncertain, and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. Non-Income Tax Matters We recorded an estimated liability for contingencies related to non-income tax matters and are under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regard to such matters. The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arise from the characterization for tax purposes of the transactions on the platform, as well as the application of certain employee benefits and employment and income taxes to our Drivers and Couriers. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions on the platform, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales tax, VAT, GST and similar taxes) or gross receipts taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to employment or income taxes, disputes involve the applicability of withholding taxes related to employment taxes or back-up income tax withholding on payments made to Drivers, Couriers, and Merchants. Our estimated liability is inherently subjective due to the complexity and uncertainty of these matters and the judicial processes in certain jurisdictions; therefore, the final outcome could be materially different from the estimated liability recorded. United Kingdom As of March 14, 2022, we modified our operating model in the UK, such that as of that date Uber UK became a merchant of transportation and is required to remit VAT. Uber UK began remitting VAT under the Value Added (Tour Operators) Order 1987 (“VAT Order 1987”), which allows for VAT remittance on a calculated margin, rather than on Gross Bookings. Due to a legislative change effective from January 2, 2026, UK Private Hire Operators are no longer permitted to apply the VAT Order 1987 in respect of supplies made on or after that date. Accordingly, Uber UK ceased applying the VAT Order 1987 after January 2, 2026. As of March 31, 2026, we have received multiple assessments from His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) disputing our application of VAT Order 1987 for the period of March 2022 to September 2024, totaling approximately $1.8 billion (£1.4 billion) for unpaid VAT. Uber paid the assessments in order to proceed with the appeal process. The payments do not represent our acceptance of the assessments. The payments made in 2023 through 2025 are recorded as a receivable in other assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheet because we believe that we will be successful in our appeal, upon which, the full amount of our payments will be returned to us with interest upon completion of the appeals process. We expect to receive additional assessments related to the period 2023 through 2025. HMRC has expressed their intention to not enforce assessments pending the determination of the appeal of a competitor on a related matter. If payment of future assessments is required, the payments would decrease operating cash flow and have no impact on our results of operations. For periods March 2022 to December 2025, we plan to vigorously defend our application of the VAT Order 1987 and are waiting to obtain hearing dates from the Tax Tribunal. In addition, the application of VAT rules to our UK operations following the January 2, 2026 legislative changes involves significant judgment and could be subject to challenge by HMRC. Other Legal and Regulatory Matters We have been or are currently subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of our business practices, compliance with antitrust, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws (including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. We are investigating many of these matters and are implementing a number of recommendations to our managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as strengthening our overall governance structure. In many cases, we are unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on our business, which could be time consuming, costly to investigate, and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact our business, reputation, financial condition, and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures. We have been and expect to continue to be subject to personal injury claims for compensation based on traffic accidents, deaths, injuries, or other incidents that occur on our platform even when Drivers, consumers, or third parties are not actively using our platform. Various plaintiffs have also coordinated and may in the future attempt to coordinate personal injury claims in various jurisdictions through mass tort or similar proceedings. We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance mechanisms to provide for personal injury risks. Our insurance reserves include unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to these claims. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we often include standard indemnification provisions in our arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, we may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with their activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by us. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.

From time to time, we are a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2025 and March 31, 2026, we had recorded aggregate liabilities of $2.1 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively, of which $215 million and $224 million, respectively, relate to non-income tax matters in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of our legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable.

We are currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, alleged background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. We have existing litigation, including class actions, Private Attorney General Act lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. We may receive misclassification claims in several jurisdictions across the United States for the foreseeable future. With respect to our outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management's expectations, our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the

On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The complaint alleges drivers are misclassified, and seeks an injunction and monetary damages related to the alleged competitive advantage caused by the alleged misclassification of drivers.

On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order, prohibiting us from classifying drivers as independent contractors and from violating various wage and hour laws. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. On October 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and we filed a petition for review of the decision with the California Supreme Court. The petition was based upon the passage of Proposition 22 by California voters in November 2020, and requested that the Court of Appeal opinion be vacated because AB5’s application to Uber was superseded by Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 was a state ballot initiative that provides a framework for drivers that use platforms like ours to qualify as independent workers. As a result of the passage of Proposition 22, drivers are able to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law, and we and our competitors are required to comply with the provisions of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020.

The California Supreme Court declined the petition for review on February 10, 2021. The lawsuit was returned to the trial court following the appellate proceedings on February 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the California Attorney General, Uber and Lyft filed a stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction with the trial court. On April 16, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting the stipulation. Although the preliminary injunction has been dissolved, the lawsuit remains ongoing relating to claims by the California Attorney General for periods prior to enactment of Proposition 22. The parties petitioned to stay this matter pending coordination with other California employment related matters, which was granted and a coordination judge was assigned. The case had been stayed pending appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, however the California Supreme Court denied review on January 17, 2024, and the case was remitted back to the Superior Court on January 29, 2024 for further proceedings. On July 2, 2024, the Superior Court lifted the stay. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. The ultimate resolution of these matters is uncertain and the amount accrued is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026.

Several Swiss administrative bodies have issued decisions in which they classify Drivers or Couriers as employees of Uber for social security or labor purposes. We are challenging them before the Social Security and Administrative Tribunals. On March 21, 2023, the Federal Tribunal ruled that Drivers who have used the Uber App in 2014 qualify as employees for social security purposes. In October 2024, the Social Security authority decided that the changes to our 2023 model are not sufficient to classify Drivers as independent contractors. We have filed an appeal against this decision. During the first quarter of 2025, we separately have resolved the social security dispute for Drivers for the years 2014 to July 2020 with the SVA Zürich authority. We continue to litigate the amounts of social security contributions at issue through 2022.

On June 3, 2022, the Federal Tribunal issued two rulings by which both Drivers and Couriers in the Canton of Geneva are classified as employees of Uber B.V., Uber Portier B.V. and Uber Switzerland GmbH. Following the ruling of the Federal Tribunal on Eats, the Social Security authorities claimed the payment of social security contributions since the launch of Uber Eats. We are litigating this claim.

In December 2024, the Social Security authorities in France (“URSSAF”) issued a letter of observations to Uber, proposing a reassessment of social security contributions. In February 2025, Uber submitted a formal response, strongly contesting the basis of URSSAF's position. URSSAF replied with an assessment in June 2025, which Uber has appealed and vigorously challenged. The ultimate resolution of the matter is uncertain and the amount accrued is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026.

Additionally, we have received other lawsuits and governmental inquiries in other jurisdictions, and anticipate future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging our classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. We believe that our current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and

In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against Uber and its subsidiaries . Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL has provided several assessments from February through October 2021. We have submitted payment for the principal revised amount of the assessment and have since reached agreement on and paid the remaining amounts allegedly owed from 2014 through 2018.

In 2023, the NJDOL initiated an audit for the period of 2019 through the second quarter of 2023. In December 2024, the NJDOL issued a preliminary assessment, which Uber immediately disputed and requested a Hearing for Redetermination of the assessment. The case is currently being litigated before the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. The ultimate resolution of the NJDOL matters is uncertain, and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026.

The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arise from the characterization for tax purposes of the transactions on the platform, as well as the application of certain employee benefits and employment and income taxes to our Drivers and Couriers. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions on the platform, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales tax, VAT, GST and similar taxes) or gross receipts taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to employment or income taxes, disputes involve the applicability of withholding taxes related to employment taxes or back-up income tax withholding on payments made to Drivers, Couriers, and Merchants.

As of March 14, 2022, we modified our operating model in the UK, such that as of that date Uber UK became a merchant of transportation and is required to remit VAT. Uber UK began remitting VAT under the Value Added (Tour Operators) Order 1987 (“VAT Order 1987”), which allows for VAT remittance on a calculated margin, rather than on Gross Bookings.

As of March 31, 2026, we have received multiple assessments from His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) disputing our application of VAT Order 1987 for the period of March 2022 to September 2024, totaling approximately $1.8 billion (£1.4 billion) for unpaid VAT. Uber paid the assessments in order to proceed with the appeal process. The payments do not represent our acceptance of the assessments.

The payments made in 2023 through 2025 are recorded as a receivable in other assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheet because we believe that we will be successful in our appeal, upon which, the full amount of our payments will be returned to us with interest upon completion of the appeals process. We expect to receive additional assessments related to the period 2023 through 2025. HMRC has expressed their intention to not enforce assessments pending the determination of the appeal of a competitor on a related matter. If payment of future assessments is required, the payments would decrease operating cash flow and have no impact on our results of operations. For periods March 2022 to December 2025, we plan to vigorously defend our application of the VAT Order 1987 and are waiting to obtain hearing dates from the Tax Tribunal. In addition, the application of VAT rules to our UK operations following the January 2, 2026 legislative changes involves significant judgment and could be subject to challenge by HMRC.

We have been or are currently subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of our business practices, compliance with antitrust, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws (including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. We are investigating many of these matters and are implementing a number of recommendations to our managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as strengthening our overall governance structure. In many cases, we are unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and

investigations on our business, which could be time consuming, costly to investigate, and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact our business, reputation, financial condition, and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures.

We have been and expect to continue to be subject to personal injury claims for compensation based on traffic accidents, deaths, injuries, or other incidents that occur on our platform even when Drivers, consumers, or third parties are not actively using our platform. Various plaintiffs have also coordinated and may in the future attempt to coordinate personal injury claims in various jurisdictions through mass tort or similar proceedings. We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance mechanisms to provide for personal injury risks. Our insurance reserves include unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to these claims.

In the ordinary course of business, we often include standard indemnification provisions in our arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, we may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with their activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by us. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.