Uber wants to see your funding agreement. Here is what that changes, and what it does not.

On June 9, 2026, Uber modified its U.S. Terms of Use. Section 6, under "Preventing Conflicts of Interest," now requires users to disclose "any relationship that you may form with third-party Litigation Funders," and, in arbitration, to attach "a true and correct copy of the Litigation Funding Agreement(s)" to the written demand. Identical language reaches drivers through their contracts.

The terms go further than disclosure. Users "waive any attorney client privilege, work product privilege, common interest privilege, or similar protection, and ... any claim of confidentiality, with respect to documents that you or your counsel share with a Litigation Funder."

The definition is broad but not unbounded. A Litigation Funder is anyone other than you, an insurer, your counsel, your legal guardian, or your estate "that provides financial support or assistance in aid of the pursuit of your Claim(s)."

Reaction from the plaintiffs' side was immediate. Georgetown law professor Maria Glover told Bloomberg Law that "no rational funder is going to inject themselves into a case where they have to disclose basically their due diligence and their work product." Plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan called the provision "just an attempt to slow down claims being filed and actually adjudicated."

We don't think much of it. It reads like an invasion of consumer privacy, but we're not overly concerned. Uber is requiring disclosure of consumer legal funding in its cases. It is not banning funding.

At the end of the day, people still need money to pay rent, bills, and other everyday expenses while their case is pending. That doesn't change because a defendant updated its terms of service.

We actually think changes like this play to our strengths. If funding agreements are going to receive more scrutiny, transparent products with competitive rates become even more important, and that is exactly what we've been building. Our rate, our cap, and our terms are published on every page of this site. A funding agreement that was written to be read does not fear being read.

There is also a definitional question worth watching. Uber's clause covers support given "in aid of the pursuit of your Claim(s)." Money for rent, bills, and groceries while a case is pending supports a person, not the pursuit of a claim. That is the same line North Carolina drew this summer when its funding ban carved out personal and household expenses, and it may matter here for the same reason.

“If funding agreements are going to receive more scrutiny, transparent products with competitive rates become even more important. That is exactly what we've been building.”

That said, we're also skeptical that the attorney-client privilege and work product waiver will ultimately hold up. A prospective waiver of privilege, buried in an app's terms of service, is the kind of provision courts tend to examine closely. That question will be litigated, and we will keep this page updated as it is.