Start a conversation

Class Action Lawsuit Says UPS Has Been Overcharging Customers

2022 UPDATE:

Actions You May Take In The Settlement. Actual Website HERE

No Action Is Necessary If you want to remain in the Settlement Class and do not wish to object to the Settlement, you do not need to do anything.
You Can Opt Out By May 30, 2022 If you do not want to be part of the Settlement Class or to participate in the Settlement, you can exclude yourself (“opt out”) by following the instructions in FAQ 13. You must opt out by May 30, 2022, to preserve claims you may have against UPS that are being released or resolved as part of the Settlement.
Class Members Can Object No Later Than May 30, 2022 If do not opt out and you wish to object to any part of the Settlement, you can write to the Court and explain why you do not like the Settlement by following the instructions in FAQ 16.
Class Members Can Attend The Hearing On June 28, 2022, By Filing A Notice Of Intention To Appear No Later Than May 30, 2022 If you have not opted out and have submitted a written objection to the Court, you can ask to address the Court about the fairness of the Settlement during the Final Approval Hearing by following the instructions in FAQ 20. You may enter your appearance in Court through an attorney (at your own expense) if you wish.

Have you been stating declared value with UPS when sending product with a cost greater than $100.00?  A recent class action lawsuit has been brought against UPS as indicated below.  Ship Watchers can provide you with valuable insight into your damage claim process to reduce your risk and costs to insure packages as part of our auditing solution.

24/7 Support including Chat is available at or by emailing us at  Our Sales Department can be reached at 800.550.7217 ext 856 with any questions you may have on our services.

As Reported by Dominic Rivera 

January 3, 2014
Article Here

A class action lawsuit has been filed by plaintiffs Steven Sival and International Samaritan against package delivery giant United Parcel Service Co., alleging that it has been systematically overcharging its customers.

According to the class action lawsuit, UPS has been charging its customers for the first $100 of declared value coverage despite openly stating under its Terms that “the first $100 of coverage is free at no charge, whether or not [the customer] purchases additional declared value coverage.”

The plaintiffs have, from time to time for the past six years, each shipped multiple packages via UPS with a declared value in excess of $300 and claimed to have been overcharged for additional coverage protection in violation of the applicable Terms and shipping rates in effect during the time of shipment.

“When the matter is brought to UPS’ attention, UPS always acknowledges the mistake and credits the account, but it does not fix the problem,” the class action lawsuit states. “This problem has been known for at least the last 18 months by certain persons in the small community of shipping consultants who make a living by auditing large companies’ shipping costs looking for savings and overcharges.”

“Smaller companies and individuals who lack the means or sophistication to hire professional shipping consultants continue to get overcharged by UPS,” the class action lawsuit contends.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the overcharging would “reflect a deliberate breach of contract with the intentional effort to defraud its customers.”

The UPS class action lawsuit also accuses the shipping giant of crediting with refunds the few customers who complain, knowing that the number of customers who “do not catch UPS’ breach of contract and fraud will far outnumber those that do.”

It should be recalled that in November 2013, another package delivery company, Federal Express Corp., reached a $21.5 class action settlement over similar allegations that it had systematically overbilled customers. FedEx allegedly overbilled for deliveries to business and government offices with bogus fees. In addition, the company allegedly failed to advise consumers that there are certain ZIP codes that would necessitate an additional fee due to the addresses’ remote location.

The UPS class action lawsuit is seeking damages for all customers who used UPS to ship a package and paid for additional coverage for loss or damage from UPS.

The UPS Class Action Lawsuit is Steven B. Sivak and International Samaritan vs. United Parcel Service Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-15263-GER-RSW, in the United States District Court for The Eastern District of Michigan.


Steven B. Sivak and International Samaritan vs. United Parcel Service Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-15263-GER-RSW

IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons,

IT  IS  HEREBY  ORDERED  that  Defendant’s  Motion  to  Dismiss  Plaintiffs’  First Amended Complaint in its Entirety or, in the alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. # 14] is GRANTED;

8  At  best,  Plaintiffs  have  alleged  “on  information  and  belief”  that  unidentified  “shipping consultants” have brought “UPS’s practice of charging for the first $100 . . . to UPS’s attention” and that “UPS routinely acknowledges the overcharge and credits  the  account.”    (Plfs’  Am.  Compl.,  Dkt.  #  13,  at  ¶¶  5,  8,  33,  42).  Such  an  allegation falls well short of Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards.  Plaintiffs have not identified a specific shipping consultant, a shipper who received a credit, or  set  forth  specific  facts  as  to  how  UPS  acknowledged  that  the  charge  was  improper.

9  It  is  this  Court’s  general  practice  to  provide  a  plaintiff  with  an  opportunity  to  amend  a  Complaint  when  faced  with  a  dismissal  that  is  readily  curable  because  slight  defects  should  not  condemn  an  otherwise  viable  complaint.    This  practice  need  not  be  followed  here,  however,  because  amendment  would  be  futile.    See, e.g., Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2000).  In  response  to  Defendant’s  Motion,  Plaintiffs  did  not  hint  at  additional  factual  allegations they could add to save their claims from dismissal.  Lewis v. Wheatley528  F.  App’x  466,  470  (6th  Cir.  2013)  (amendment  is  futile  when,  among  other  things,  a  plaintiff  does  not  “provide[]  any  additional  factual  allegations  that  [it]  would submit in an amended complaint”)39 Case 2:13-cv-15263-GER-RSW   ECF No. 36   filed 07/01/14    PageID.788    Page 39 of 40

IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Plaintiffs’  First  Amended  Complaint  is  dismissed with prejudice; andIT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Plaintiffs’  Motion  for  Leave  to  File  Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 30] is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated:  July 1, 2014s/Gerald E. Rosen Chief, Judge, United States District Court

Ship Watchers is a logistics auditing company that keeps carriers compliant on rates, surcharges, incentives, and incorrect charges found within carrier invoices.  

Want to stay on top of carrier increases, rate changes, and benchmark studies while insuring that your invoices are free from errors and incorrect charges?  Give us a shout to learn more at or by calling us at 800.550.7217 ext 874.

No term agreements, no additional effort, and no additional fees...  Just a small percentage of the savings we bring to your carrier accounts directly through our auditing process.

Learn More Today... - 24/7 Support including Chat

Small Parcel Negotiation and Audit Consultants

Choose files or drag and drop files
Was this article helpful?
  1. Ethan B.

  2. Posted
  3. Updated