What does the class-action lawsuit against Upside allege and what is its current status?
Executive summary
A proposed class-action filed in late 2023 accuses Upside Services, Inc. of misleading customers about a “lifetime” referral program—alleging the company promised ongoing referral payments, quietly cut those benefits for older codes, but continued to let those codes be used and promoted—while seeking to represent California referrers harmed during the statute-of-limitations period [1]. Reporting identifies the complaint’s core claims and requested remedies but does not record any settlement, judgment, or definitive court disposition as of those reports, leaving the lawsuit’s active procedural status unresolved in the provided sources [1] [2].
1. What the lawsuit alleges: lifetime referrals turned ephemeral
The complaint, detailed in a 34‑page filing reported December 1, 2023, contends that Upside built customer acquisition around a referral promise—advertising that users who shared codes would receive ongoing, “lifetime” payments each time a referred user redeemed gas rebates—then reneged on that promise by depriving holders of older referral codes of future payments while continuing to accept and display those codes to recruit new users [1]. The suit frames this as active consumer deception: plaintiffs say Upside knew older codes created false expectations of ongoing referral benefits yet continued to host webpages that encouraged the public sharing and advertisement of those codes [1].
2. Who the class would cover and the relief sought
According to the reported complaint, the proposed class targets anyone in California who made referrals to Upside pursuant to its lifetime-referral program during the applicable statute-of-limitations window, and it seeks remedies tied to the alleged misrepresentations—potentially restitution, injunctive relief (for example, disabling older codes or adding disclaimers), and other damages consistent with consumer-protection claims [1]. The plaintiffs explicitly suggest simple fixes—such as a pop-up disclaimer when older codes are entered or outright disabling the legacy codes—that would vindicate their theory that the harm arises from material misleading communications rather than user misunderstanding alone [1].
3. Company behavior and competing narratives in the suit
The litigation highlights a contrast: Upside reportedly told the public it had deactivated older referral codes in December of the relevant year, but the lawsuit alleges those codes remained active and continued to funnel new sign-ups under false pretenses [1]. From the plaintiff side, that discrepancy is evidence of knowing misconduct; from the company’s likely defense (not directly quoted in the sources), the narrative could be that any deactivation was implemented, that technical anomalies explain lingering links, or that no actionable misrepresentation occurred—however, the reporting supplied does not include an Upside statement or court responses to those defenses [1].
4. Current procedural status based on available reporting
The articles provided describe the proposed class action and its filing date (December 1, 2023) but do not report subsequent docket developments, court rulings, settlements, certification decisions, or motions in the case—meaning the available sources stop at the complaint and the class-definition allegations without showing any resolution or active court status [1] [2]. There is no record in the supplied reporting of a certified class, negotiated settlement, dismissal, or trial outcome, so any assertion about the lawsuit’s present court posture would exceed what these sources support [1] [2].
5. Don’t conflate Upside Services with “Upside Foods” litigation
Coverage in the supplied materials also includes litigation involving a different company—Upside Foods—challenging Florida’s ban on cultivated meat, which is unrelated to the consumer-referral class action; mixing the two would cause confusion because the Foods matter alleges constitutional and regulatory claims about cultivated meat, not consumer-referral fraud [3] [4]. Readers tracking the referral class action should therefore distinguish Upside Services, Inc. (the rebate/referral platform at issue in the class complaint) from similarly named entities engaged in separate litigation elsewhere [1] [3].
6. What to watch next and limits of current reporting
Key developments to monitor are whether the plaintiffs move for class certification, whether Upside files a motion to dismiss or an answer denying the alleged misconduct, any discovery disclosures about how the referral codes were handled, and whether regulators or state attorneys general pursue parallel actions; the present sources do not report any of those steps, so investigative follow-up on court dockets or public filings is required to learn the lawsuit’s procedural trajectory and any potential relief for claimants [1] [2]. The public reporting cited presents the plaintiffs’ allegations and proposed fixes but lacks documentation of a judicial finding or company response, leaving the central claims contested and not yet adjudicated in the material provided [1] [2].