U-Haul Drip Pricing Lawsuit: California, New York, and Canada Cases

A U-Haul drip pricing lawsuit filed in California in September 2025, followed by a second class action in New York in February 2026, accuses the country’s largest consumer truck rental company of advertising low base rates like $19.95 or $29.95 per day while burying mandatory fees deep in its online checkout. A Canadian class action and a Federal Trade Commission complaint from consumer watchdog Truth in Advertising (TINA.org) make similar allegations. None of the cases has been decided, and U-Haul has not publicly responded to the claims.

What the Lawsuits Say U-Haul Is Hiding

Both U.S. class actions center on the same practice. A customer sees an advertised rate, starts a reservation, and only after clicking through roughly 10 pages of the online checkout process does a mandatory “environmental fee” appear on the bill. By that point, the plaintiffs argue, a customer has invested enough time that walking away feels impractical. The California complaint also calls the “environmental fee” label itself misleading, saying a reasonable consumer would read it as a government-imposed charge rather than a fee U-Haul keeps for itself.¹

TINA.org’s separate investigation identified a second mandatory add-on that appears late in checkout: a “vehicle cost recovery fee” that U-Haul’s own rental contracts describe as covering licensing, titling, and registration of its fleet. That fee ranges from about $1 to just over $5.² TINA.org also alleged that U-Haul’s advertised per-mile charges of $0.59 to $0.99 often exceeded $2.00 per mile in practice. The group’s conclusion was blunt: “There is not a single consumer in the entire country who will pay this price for a U-Haul truck rental.”³

The California Case: Barnett v. U-Haul

Christopher Barnett filed the first case in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 15, 2025. U-Haul removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where it is now Case No. 2:25-cv-09893.⁴ The complaint alleges U-Haul advertises rentals at prices like $29.95 and then adds a $1 environmental fee only after a customer navigates roughly 10 checkout pages.¹

Barnett brings six causes of action: violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (including the 2024 Honest Pricing Law amendment), violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and a quasi-contract claim for restitution. The proposed class covers everyone in California charged fees not included in U-Haul’s advertised price since July 1, 2024, the day the Honest Pricing Law took effect. Barnett estimates the class exceeds 200,000 people.⁴

The stakes are large. Because the Honest Pricing Law allows liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation in class actions, U-Haul’s own notice of removal calculates the potential amount in controversy at $200 million.⁴ The complaint also seeks an injunction requiring U-Haul to fold all mandatory fees into its advertised prices, along with restitution, disgorgement, and punitive damages. Barnett is represented by Paul K. Haines of Haines Law Group and by Jack Day and Calvin Bryne of Day Bryne & McIntosh.⁵

The New York Case: Griffiths v. U-Haul

Melanie Griffiths filed the second class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 25, 2026, as Case No. 1:26-cv-01092.⁶ The core allegation is the same, but the numbers and legal theories differ. Griffiths says U-Haul added a mandatory $5 environmental fee, not $1, during the final step of checkout, and she brings claims under New York’s General Business Law, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.⁷

The proposed class in Griffiths is nationwide, excluding California, which is already covered by Barnett.⁷ The case is before Judge Hector Gonzalez. U-Haul has signaled it will move to compel arbitration, and the court granted Griffiths leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Briefing on the arbitration motion is due by July 1, 2026.⁶

A Canadian Class Action

A Notice of Civil Claim was filed in British Columbia on April 25, 2025, on behalf of a proposed class of all Canadians outside Quebec who paid an environmental fee through U-Haul’s website or mobile app. That case has not yet been certified as a class proceeding.⁸

TINA.org’s FTC and State Complaints

Separate from the private lawsuits, Truth in Advertising filed a complaint with the FTC and with consumer protection officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia on May 5, 2025, accusing U-Haul of a “multifaceted, deceptive bait-and-switch pricing scheme.”⁹ The complaint targets U-Haul’s long-running $19.95-per-day advertising for local truck rentals, the figure painted on the side of every U-Haul truck.

In January 2026, TINA.org filed a further complaint with the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection under the city’s new Executive Order 09 on junk fees. That complaint flagged location-specific fees at U-Haul facilities in the city that could add as much as $18.95 to the advertised price of a single rental.¹⁰ As of mid-2026, TINA.org has said a couple of states told the group they would look into the matter, but no public enforcement action against U-Haul has been announced.⁹ U-Haul has declined to comment.³

The California Law Driving the Barnett Case

Barnett’s California claims rest largely on Senate Bill 478, signed on October 7, 2023, and effective July 1, 2024.¹¹ The law amended the Consumer Legal Remedies Act to make it unlawful to advertise a price that does not include all mandatory fees, exempting only government taxes and reasonable shipping. The complaint notes U-Haul had nearly nine months between the law’s signing and its effective date to adjust its pricing practices.¹

One wrinkle could matter. SB 478 contains an exemption for vehicle rental companies that comply with existing industry-specific disclosure requirements under California law.¹¹ Whether U-Haul qualifies could become a central issue. Barnett’s complaint does not address the exemption directly, and U-Haul’s notice of removal reserved all defenses without specifically invoking it.⁴

Where the Cases Stand

As of mid-2026, none of the U-Haul drip-pricing cases has produced a ruling on the merits. Barnett is in the early stages of federal litigation in California, with no reported motions or settlement activity.⁵ Griffiths in New York is tied up in the arbitration dispute, with briefing running through July 2026.⁶ The British Columbia case has not been certified.⁸ Customers outside California who paid an environmental fee may fall within the Griffiths proposed nationwide class if it is certified and survives arbitration; those inside California may fall within Barnett’s proposed class going back to July 1, 2024. Neither class has been certified yet, and no deadlines for opting in or out have been set.

1
ClassAction.org. U-Haul Lawsuit Alleges Company Illegally Hides Extra Fees Until the End of Checkout
2
TINA.org. TINA Complaint to FTC Re U-Haul
3
KOMO News. U-Haul Uses Bait-and-Switch Advertising According to Investigation by Watchdog Group
4
ClassAction.org. Barnett v. U-Haul International Inc. Complaint
5
Top Class Actions. Class Action Accuses U-Haul of Deceptive Drip Pricing That Hides Fees
6
Docket Alarm. Griffiths v. U-Haul International Inc.
7
Top Class Actions. U-Haul Accused of Adding Hidden Fee to Advertised Truck Rental Prices
8
Slater Vecchio LLP. U-Haul Price Dripping Class Action
9
Business Insider. U-Haul Truth in Advertising Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Pricing Allegation
10
TINA.org. U-Haul Taking a Bite Out of the Big Apple
11
LegiScan. California SB 478 Text