Case Overview

Cases Covered: H&R Block Military Lending Act Lawsuit; U-Haul Hidden Fee Lawsuit

Filed: March 2026

Status: Pending

Verticals: Fees & Charges; Consumer Protection

Hidden Fees and Overcharges: Two New Class Action Lawsuits to Watch in March 2026

Two new class action lawsuits filed in March 2026 allege that well-known American brands — H&R Block and U-Haul — used deceptive pricing practices to extract more money from customers than they were led to expect. One lawsuit targets a tax preparation giant accused of overcharging active-duty military members on loan products. The other takes aim at a moving truck rental company accused of advertising artificially low prices before adding fees at checkout.

Neither case has been resolved, and no liability has been established. But both lawsuits raise questions about fee transparency that consumers and regulators have increasingly put under the microscope. Here's what you need to know.

1. H&R Block — Military Lending Act Violation Lawsuit

Filed: March 10, 2026

Estimated Payout: Not yet determined — case is in early stages

Who May Qualify: Active-duty military members who obtained a tax refund advance loan through H&R Block

A new class action lawsuit alleges that H&R Block charged active-duty military service members interest rates on tax refund advance loans that exceeded the 36% Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) cap established by the Military Lending Act (MLA). The MLA is a federal law designed to protect servicemembers and their dependents from predatory lending practices.

According to the complaint, H&R Block marketed these products — sometimes called "Refund Advance" loans — as a way for customers to access their anticipated tax refund before the IRS processes their return. The lawsuit alleges, however, that the effective interest rate on these products, when properly calculated under MLA rules, exceeded the legal limit for borrowers who are covered by the statute.

The plaintiff claims that H&R Block failed to properly disclose loan terms to military borrowers and charged fees that, when factored into the annual percentage rate, pushed the true cost of the loan above what federal law permits. The lawsuit further alleges that H&R Block's conduct was not an isolated error but part of a broader pattern affecting military customers across the country.

H&R Block has not publicly responded to the allegations, and no court has made a finding of wrongdoing.

How to follow this case: Monitor the case docket for updates as it progresses through the courts. Active-duty military members or veterans who obtained a refund advance loan through H&R Block may want to consult with a qualified attorney to understand whether their situation is relevant to this litigation.

2. U-Haul — Hidden Fee / Drip Pricing Lawsuit

Filed: March 17, 2026

Estimated Payout: Not yet determined — case is in early stages

Who May Qualify: Customers who rented a U-Haul truck and were charged fees not reflected in the advertised rental price

A new class action lawsuit accuses U-Haul of employing a deceptive pricing tactic known as "drip pricing" — a practice in which a company advertises an attractively low headline price, then layers on additional fees during the checkout process that significantly increase the final cost.

According to the complaint, U-Haul prominently advertises low rental rates — in some instances as low as $19.95 per day — that the lawsuit alleges do not reflect what customers actually pay. The plaintiff claims that fees for items such as environmental charges, fuel, and other add-ons are not adequately disclosed upfront and are only revealed when a customer is deep into the booking process, making it difficult to make a fully informed purchasing decision.

The lawsuit alleges this practice violates state consumer protection laws and constitutes an unfair and deceptive business act. The plaintiff argues that had customers been shown the full price at the outset, they would have made different decisions — either choosing a competitor or negotiating the terms of their rental.

Drip pricing has been an explicit enforcement focus for the Federal Trade Commission, which has taken the position that failing to disclose mandatory fees upfront can constitute a deceptive trade practice under the FTC Act.

U-Haul has not publicly responded to the allegations, and no court has made a finding of wrongdoing.

How to follow this case: Customers who rented a U-Haul truck and believe they were charged fees not reflected in the advertised price may want to review their rental receipts and monitor this case for developments.

Key Takeaways

• Both lawsuits are in early stages. No settlements have been reached and no liability has been established. These cases may take months or years to resolve.
• The H&R Block lawsuit invokes a specific federal consumer protection law. The Military Lending Act sets hard caps on what lenders can charge servicemembers — and the alleged violation carries significant legal weight if the claims are substantiated.
• The U-Haul case reflects a broader regulatory trend. The FTC has made hidden fees and drip pricing an enforcement priority, signaling that lawsuits like this one align with mounting government scrutiny of checkout-stage fees.
• No receipts may be needed to follow these cases. Class members in fee-related lawsuits often do not need to produce documentation to receive notice — but eligibility requirements vary and will be determined by the courts if a settlement is reached.
• Watch for class certification decisions. For either case to move forward as a class action, a judge must certify that the claims are suitable for group litigation. That ruling will be a key milestone.

Have you had an experience with unexpected fees from H&R Block or U-Haul? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com does not provide legal advice. This article is intended for informational purposes only. If you believe you have been affected by either of these lawsuits, consult a qualified attorney.