Uber Faces CCPA Notice Over ‘Advance Tip’ Feature For Faster Rides; Details Here

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued a notice to ride-hailing platform Uber, questioning its practice of prompting users to pay a tip in advance in exchange for quicker service. Union Minister of Consumer Affairs Pralhad Joshi called the practice “unethical” and “exploitative,” raising concerns over its fairness to consumers.

In a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Joshi criticised the mechanism, stating, “The practice of 'Advance Tip' is deeply concerning. Forcing or nudging users to pay a tip in advance, for faster service is unethical and exploitative. Such actions fall under unfair trade practices. Tip is given as a token of appreciation not as a matter of right, after the service.”

The minister confirmed that he had directed the CCPA to look into the matter, and a formal notice has now been sent to Uber seeking an explanation. The CCPA operates under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. Uber has not yet responded publicly to the notice.

“Taking cognisance of this, I had asked CCPA to look into it and today CCPA has issued a notice to @Uber in this regard, seeking explanation from the platform. Fairness, transparency and accountability must be upheld in all customer interactions,” he added.

Screenshots circulating online show that the Uber app offers riders the option to add a tip of Rs 50, Rs 75, or Rs 100 during the booking process, suggesting that a driver “may be more likely to accept this ride” if a tip is added. The message also states that the tip cannot be altered later and assures that drivers receive the full amount.

Also read: India's Economy Set To Manage The Impact Of US Tariff Disruptions: Moody's

Previous Notice

This isn't the first time Uber has come under regulatory scrutiny in India. In January, the CCPA issued notices to both Uber and Ola over alleged differential pricing based on the mobile operating system used by the customer, iOS versus Android. Both companies denied the claims, stating that pricing was not influenced by the user's device type.

business