Different Prices for the Same Trip: How Uber and Lyft Use AI to Get More Money from Riders
Investigation Consumer Reports The study showed that users see radically different prices for identical trips booked at the same time. Among other things, it raises questions about consumer discounts.
A months-long investigation by Consumer Reports found that Uber and Lyft, the two most popular ride-hailing services in the US, regularly charge different customers significantly different prices for the same trip. Across all routes tested, the median difference between the lowest and highest prices was approximately 50%.
Both platforms regularly entice users to book trips with purported discounts. Experts consider this practice not only misleading and manipulative but also potentially violating consumer protection laws in several states. About 11% of all discounts displayed on both platforms fell into this category. Consumer Reports considers such discounts to be fictitious—what experts and regulators call false price guidance or fake discounts.
On the subject: Uber will invest $1,25 billion in Rivian's self-driving cars and create a fleet of 10 robotaxis.
Uber and Lyft said they do not use fake pricing and attributed the study's results to real-time market conditions.
The companies said they do not personalize base rates for individual users and do not use behavioral or "observational" pricing.
Algorithmic and AI-based pricing used by Uber and Lyft is drawing increasing criticism from consumers, lawmakers, and regulators. This year, Connecticut and Maryland became the first US states to ban certain forms of personalized pricing, and other states are considering similar measures.
Uber was founded in 2009, Lyft in 2012. After rapid growth, Uber had over 200 million active users by the end of 2025, while Lyft had around 30 million.
Uber is considered a pioneer of dynamic and "peak" pricing, whereby the cost of a ride fluctuates sharply depending on supply and demand. Consumers in the US have become accustomed (albeit with irritation) to prices rising during periods of high demand or limited supply, as happens with airline tickets, hotels, and tickets to concerts and sporting events.
However, the pattern identified in Consumer Reports' tests differs from classic dynamic or peak pricing. Because volunteers booked identical trips at nearly the same time, the significant price discrepancies cannot be explained solely by supply and demand.
Beyond price differences and fake discounts, tests have shown that Uber and Lyft retain between 43% and 49,5% of each trip's cost, a share that has been growing in recent years while drivers' share has been declining.
Price range for identical trips
The median difference between the highest and lowest price across 30 virtual routes was 50%.
The study then provides examples of the distribution of differences across states and routes, where the spread ranged from approximately 19% to more than 150% in some cases, including routes in Colorado, New York, Arizona, Louisiana, California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Georgia, Idaho, and other states, with maximum values exceeding 100% on some routes.
Experts who reviewed the results said they expected dynamic pricing, but not such large gaps between minimum and maximum prices.
Previously, Uber and Lyft used fixed rates per mile and minute—like a traditional taxi service—with added fees, surcharges, and discounts. Around 2016, they transitioned to a "price-based" model, where an algorithm predicts the cost of a trip in advance, taking into account current conditions such as traffic, weather, construction, supply, and demand.
This model proved to be extremely profitable, but led to higher costs for passengers and a decline in the share of drivers.
Since September 2022, Uber has begun gradually raising prices for passengers and reducing payments to drivers, increasing its share from 32% in 2022 to 42% by the end of 2024.
As a result, Uber's profits nearly quadrupled: from approximately $2,1 billion in 2019 to nearly $7,9 billion in 2025. Lyft also turned a profit, increasing its results from a loss of approximately $679 million in 2019 to a profit of approximately $529 million in 2025.
Research has shown that Uber may charge higher prices for trips to expensive hotels, and that trips in Chicago were more expensive for routes linked to low-income and non-white neighborhoods. The study concluded that "two trips ordered within milliseconds of each other almost never cost the same."
Both companies deny using personal data to set base prices and claim that any differences are explained by market dynamics. Lyft called the racial disparities study "seriously flawed" because it relied on neighborhood demographics rather than driver data.
Both companies acknowledge the use of personal data for discounts and promotions. A 2017 study found that personalization can increase a company's profits by 55% and reduce prices for more than 60% of customers. Uber cites personalization as a standard practice aimed at improving the effectiveness of its offers.
Companies defend their pricing models. In March, Uber stated that users sometimes see different prices for the "same" trip, but this, it said, is rare and is due to short-term changes in demand, GPS inaccuracy, promotions, memberships, and pickup time estimates.
Uber also claims that pricing begins before you even click the order button, so even a small difference in app loading time can affect the final price.
Lyft explains its Prime Time model as a mechanism to address market imbalances caused by driver shortages and long wait times. The company claims its algorithms consider the impact of a single request on the entire system in real time.
However, Consumer Reports' tests contradict these arguments. All 30 routes found at least two price groups with a difference of at least 5%. In many cases, there were more.
In Portland, identical trips to the airport booked simultaneously yielded eight different prices. On one route in Kansas City, the same route received 29 different prices from 55 users.
Researchers tested the impact of time and found that even with bookings made within a minute, the difference persisted. For example, in Phoenix, 18 users booked a ride at 17:47 PM and received base prices of around $55–$60, but after discounts, the final prices ranged from $41,21 to $56,96—a 38% difference.
In Atlanta, 37 users booked a ride at 20:26 PM and received base fares ranging from $12,92 to $14,99, with final prices after discounts ranging from $12,28 to $14,99.
Columbia University expert Len Sherman said companies' arguments about the influence of time do not explain the observed differences.
The story of 75-year-old Gretchen Forsyth, who lives in the Las Vegas suburb of Summerlin, illustrates the consequences of such practices. She uses Uber and Lyft for trips to stores, doctor's appointments, and family gatherings. Gretchen considers herself "dependent" on these services and says she constantly feels trapped by the lack of alternatives.
After reviewing the study's results, she stated, "Both services are taking advantage of my position. It's exploitation. I believe companies should make money by providing a service, and Uber was my salvation at first. But now it's pure profit-driven and dishonest."
Discounts section
Discounts and temporary "flash" promotions have become a key part of the platforms' businesses. Nearly 50% of the introductory prices displayed supposedly included discounts.
According to an analysis by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, of approximately 20 million rides in the US in 2023, 8,5% of Uber rides and 1,9% of Lyft rides had an explicit discount. By 2025, this share increased to 11,67% for Uber and 21,25% for Lyft.
Economist Mark Tremblay of UNLV said discounts have become the "new normal" for business, moving from occasional promotions to a core part of company strategy.
However, analysis revealed that a significant portion of discounts may be fictitious. Users have a poor understanding of the actual cost of rides and are easily fooled by the illusion of a good deal.
Consumer Reports found that about 11% of discounts were fake. The rest were either insignificant or represented real but small discounts off the regular price.
The US Federal Trade Commission formally defines deceptive pricing as a deceptive practice, but has barely enforced these regulations for over 50 years. Experts believe such discounts may violate consumer protection laws in several states, including California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and New Jersey. Lawyer Veena Dubal called the study's findings "lawsuitable."
Uber refers to some offers with the old price crossed out and the new reduced amount not as discounts, but as "historical comparisons." Experts believe consumers perceive this as a regular discount.
Truth in Advertising attorney Laura Smith said algorithms could exacerbate such practices and make it more difficult for regulators to enforce them, especially without independent audits.
Digital pricing makes it nearly impossible to understand why different users see different prices, she said.
Professor Katie Wells of the AI Now Institute said companies were effectively destroying the very concept of base price and that such discounts were "odd and tedious" because it was impossible to know whether there was a real benefit.
Section on drivers' income
61-year-old driver Stephanie King previously worked as an office manager, but in 2018 she became an Uber and Lyft driver. In her first year, she earned about $60 with bonuses, but her income later dropped to about $35 per year.
She says bonuses have become smaller, conditions are constantly changing, and it's impossible to figure out a stable earnings model.
Uber and Lyft claimed that the observer effect may have skewed the results: mass price checking can artificially influence demand. Uber argues that because prices change every second, it's impossible to guarantee simultaneous requests.
The companies claim that in their system, every trip is unique, even if the route appears the same.
According to Uber representatives, "in a dynamic market with 1,7 million trips per hour, each trip is determined not only by the route, but also by the moment of the request and local conditions."
However, experts disagree, noting that even with strict time controls, many users received identical prices. Professor Christo Wilson of Northeastern University believes that the small number of participants could not have created an artificial surge in demand.
Companies attribute the differences to a variety of factors: demand, number of drivers, location, time, travel time forecast, weather, traffic, and promotions.
Lyft said its prices reflect actual market dynamics and the real-time balance of supply and demand.
Both companies acknowledge the use of personal data only for promotions and discounts.
Their patents and policies describe the vast array of data they collect: in-app behavior, contacts, calendar (if allowed), and inferences about users, such as frequent trips to the airport indicating frequent travel, and a name being used to determine gender.
Uber's patents also describe models that analyze a phone's sensors, the speed at which a user types an address, its gait, and even the angle of the device's tilt to draw conclusions about the user and their behavior.
M. Keith Chen, former head of economic research at Uber, noted that modern systems are no longer limited to supply and demand but actively use behavioral data.
Both companies again denied the allegations of fake discounts, arguing that the differences are due to market dynamics. Uber argues that if one user sees a "discounted" price and another does not, it means the base prices were already different.
Companies estimate their commission share at around 20% and claim it is significantly lower than 30%.
The difference in estimates is due to the calculation methodology: Uber and Lyft include the cost of driver insurance, which they say should be taken into account.
Experts believe this is incorrect, since insurance is a normal operating expense.
Analysis shows that Uber does indeed take about half of the trip cost. A study of three Uber drivers with over 50 trips found the company's share to be over 50% in many cities. A separate analysis of Oregon data found that Uber takes an average of 44%, while Lyft takes 52%.
Lyft promised to guarantee drivers at least 70% of their earnings after external fees in 2024, but was later fined $2,1 million by the Federal Trade Commission for making misleading income claims.
Before the pay system changes, Uber drivers expected to keep up to 80% of their income, according to lawsuits.
Portland driver Mohamed Drissi said that after all fees and commissions, the remaining revenue is significantly less than expected. During test rides, passengers paid about $126, of which $66,73 went to the driver, $58,41 to Uber, and $16,66 went to city and airport taxes. Excluding fees, the driver received about 53% of the total and Uber about 46%.
No driver – no problem
Chet Mehta, 64, a retired IBM engineer from Austin, most often uses Uber and Lyft for rides to the airport. He increasingly compares prices between services and sometimes opts for Waymo's driverless self-driving cars.
He says he understands dynamic pricing, but doesn't trust it and isn't sure if the discounts are truly fair or if revenue is distributed fairly.
In recent years, Uber and Lyft have become major companies, controlling about 95% of the ride-sharing market in the United States.
For passengers, this means more expensive rides, price increases above inflation, and stagnant driver incomes. In 2025, the average ride price will increase by 9,6%, while driver hourly wages will only increase by 3,6%, with inflation at 2,7%.
You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants, and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York
Most Americans believe drivers should receive the bulk of the fare. In a Consumer Reports survey of 2,183 adults in April, more than half said drivers should receive almost all of the fare. Twenty-five percent believe the income should be split equally, and only 2% believe the company should receive the majority.
Uber and Lyft don't disclose pricing details, calling them trade secrets. However, algorithm experts believe the companies are effectively creating customized prices without a transparent explanation.
Read also on ForumDaily:
Gas prices in California have surpassed $5 per gallon.
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google NewsDo you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.
Editor's Choice
