Lawsuit Information Center
Uber has been facing a growing number of allegations and civil lawsuits from rideshare passengers alleging that Uber drivers sexually assaulted them. The lawsuits against Uber allege that the company should be held liable for these sexual assaults because it negligently failed to screen its drivers properly.
Recently, a growing number of sexual assault lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed against Uber across the country. These cases were recently consolidated into a new class action lawsuit by Uber (In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation – MDL No. 3084). This new MDL has over 1,400 plaintiffs in over 29 states as of April 2025 and is expected to grow to the thousands. The first Uber sex abuse trial will be in December 2025.
This page will provide the latest news and updates on the Uber driver sexual assault litigation. Our lawyers also provide our predictions on the potential settlement value of these rideshare lawsuits. We believe these are extremely strong lawsuits and expect that, sooner rather than later, Uber will make reasonable settlement compensation offers to resolve this litigation.
Our national mass tort firm is talking to victims and accepting new Uber sexual assault cases. If an Uber driver assaulted you, contact us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Table of Contents
➤ Timeline – Uber Driver Sex Abuse
➤ Uber Driver Sex Abuse Class Action
➤ Frequently Asked Questions About How These Lawsuits Work
Uber Sex Assault Litigation Updates
As the Uber sexual assault litigation continues to evolve, the landscape is constantly shifting. Discovery battles, bellwether case selection, and court rulings on Uber’s marketing and safety policies are shaping the trajectory of these claims. Our law firm believes strongly in these cases and we expect Uber will come to its senses sooner rather later and offer victims the settlement compensation they deserve before we ever have a trial.
Our lawyers remain committed to providing the latest developments and insights, ensuring you stay informed on critical updates, legal strategies, and potential settlement outcomes.
So below we break down the latest court filings, discovery disputes, and trial preparations, so you know exactly where this litigation stands.
Uber Keeps Pushing Nonsense Forum Clause
May 20, 2025
Uber has filed a motion to transfer 13 of the 20 bellwether cases out of the Northern District of California, invoking a forum-selection clause embedded in its terms of use. This would shift the trials to states like Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
The company argues that each plaintiff agreed to adjudicate personal injury claims exclusively in the state or federal court where the incident occurred, and that federal law strongly favors enforcement of such clauses absent extraordinary circumstances. According to Uber, no such circumstances exist here.
But Uber’s position is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of multidistrict litigation and the structure of bellwether trials. This MDL was created because the allegations are systemic and center on Uber’s nationwide failure to implement meaningful safety protections despite knowing for years that its platform exposed passengers to sexual violence. Trying these bellwethers in a centralized forum is essential to evaluating those broader liability questions. Fragmenting the litigation into scattered district courts undermines the entire MDL process, delaying resolution and eroding judicial efficiency.
Moreover, Uber’s forum-selection clause is not entitled to blind enforcement in this context. These clauses are not absolute. Courts routinely refuse to enforce them when doing so would defeat the public interest or the goals of consolidation. Plaintiffs in this MDL were selected through a coordinated process under court supervision, not based on individual convenience. The litigation is already deep into discovery, and the court has invested significant time in managing the docket. Forcing transfer now would require multiple courts to duplicate work already completed, while creating inconsistent pretrial rulings and trial timelines. Besides, a lot of these nonsensical clauses are particularly unenforceable in sexual assault lawsuits.
Lawsuits Keep Coming
May 19, 2025
Our lawyers continue to get call from women who have been sexually attacked by their Uber driver. This litigation continues to grow faster than we realized. Just today, 14 new Uber lawsuits were filed.
Discovery Ruling
May 15, 2025
Judge Breyer issued several rulings on discovery disputes concerning upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Plaintiffs sought broad testimony on Uber’s data deletion practices and asserted misuse of privilege, arguing these issues reflected a pattern of concealment. Uber objected, calling the requests speculative and overbroad.
The court declined to strike the topics entirely but imposed limits. Plaintiffs may pursue questions tied to specific production gaps or documented retention failures but may not rely on hearsay, third-party claims, or material like Super Pumped to compel testimony. Requests for live system walkthroughs during depositions were rejected as procedurally unsupported, though a separate ESI review remains an option.
Uber’s bid to reduce deposition time below the MDL’s 10.5-hour standard was denied. The Court reaffirmed that prior testimony in state proceedings does not justify curtailing time in the federal MDL.
Discovery Hearing
May 13, 2025
The court had a 50-minute discovery hearing today. The court heard arguments presented by both sides regarding the joint letter on Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, as outlined in docket entry 2957. In addition to addressing that dispute, the Court requested an update on the status of case-specific discovery for upcoming bellwether trials. Counsel for both parties provided progress reports during the session.
The Path to Uber Sex Abuse Trials
May 8, 2025
Judge Breyer has selected six cases for Bellwether Trial Wave 1. These cases, drawn from plaintiff and defense nominations, include claims of verbal harassment, unwanted touching, kissing, and sexual penetration. The group spans multiple states and presents a cross-section of the misconduct alleged in this litigation.
These early trials matter because the nature of the alleged assault—whether verbal or involving penetration—will drive settlement value. A jury will treat these cases very differently. That is why a diverse bellwether pool is critical: it will test Uber’s defenses across jurisdictions and give all sides a clearer picture of risk.
Deadlines are tight. Discovery closes in September, and the first trial is set for December 8. But our view remains the same. These trials are leverage. A global settlement is more likely than a jury verdict.
MDL Adds 200 More Cases
May 2, 2025
The Uber sexual assault litigation continues to grow steadily, with 2,062 active claims now consolidated before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California in MDL-3084. That is up from 1,883 last month.
What the FTC Lawsuit Tells Us
April 22, 2025
The Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit against Uber, accusing the company of making it intentionally difficult for users to cancel their $9.99/month Uber One subscriptions. The FTC says the process is designed to frustrate users, requiring multiple screens and steps, and has even led to viral tutorials showing people how to cancel. Some users reported being charged without ever knowingly enrolling.
So what does this have to do with Uber sexual assault claims? Everything. It’s another example of a company that will do whatever it takes to protect its bottom line. Whether it’s designing apps to trap users in paid subscriptions or downplaying sexual assault to avoid liability and bad press, Uber’s behavior follows the same principle: profit above all else.
New Plaintiff Joins Uber Sexual Assault MDL
April 10, 2025
A woman from Kansas City, Missouri, has joined the MDL, suing Uber after she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a ride in Orange County, Florida, on April 11, 2023. Filed directly in the Northern District of California under MDL No. 3084, the lawsuit claims the plaintiff was paired with her attacker through the Uber platform and that the company is liable for the assault under several negligence and vicarious liability theories.
The complaint adopts the full set of allegations and causes of action set forth in the master long-form complaint, including negligent hiring and supervision, failure to warn, and liability under both common carrier and product liability theories. The lawsuit emphasizes Uber’s non-delegable duty to provide safe transportation and argues the assault was a foreseeable result of systemic safety failures within the platform’s design and oversight processes.
Multiple Plaintiff Trials Sought
April 9, 2025
Plaintiffs are urging the judge to begin the first bellwether trial with three or more survivors rather than proceeding with a single case. While resolving individual claims is one goal, the broader purpose of bellwether trials is to test common claims and defenses. Few plaintiffs will reach trial. These early cases will shape settlement leverage and set the pace for thousands still waiting.
A consolidated trial is not only efficient but necessary. When multiple plaintiffs tell similar stories of harm tied to the same corporate practices, jurors see patterns. Patterns support foreseeability and rebut the defense narrative that each assault was an isolated incident. Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s misconduct is systemic, not anecdotal, and that systemic failures are best understood when multiple voices are heard together.
The legal and factual overlap across the bellwether pool (including claims of negligent hiring, failure to implement safety features, and app design flaws) makes consolidation appropriate under Rule 42(a). Presenting these claims side by side increases evidentiary efficiency and creates a more accurate picture of the litigation. A single plaintiff’s case may falter, but a group can present a more representative view and yield clearer insights for both sides.
Plaintiffs also propose advancing the deadline for selecting initial trial cases to allow targeted discovery and staging pretrial deadlines to align with trial scheduling. These changes would reduce waste and streamline preparation. Courts routinely consolidate trials in complex MDLs, and juries are fully capable of evaluating multiple claims when guided by proper instructions and verdict forms. A consolidated trial offers the Court and the parties the clearest window into whether Uber’s failures enabled a pattern of sexual violence on its platform.
New Florida Uber MDL Lawsuit
April 7, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the Northern District of California, a plaintiff from Kissimmee, Florida, filed suit against Uber, alleging that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her during a ride arranged through the platform in Alachua County, Florida, on May 6, 2023. She was the account holder who requested the ride and claims that Uber and its affiliated entities failed in their duty to ensure passenger safety.
The complaint adopts the causes of action asserted in the MDL’s Master Long-Form Complaint, including claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and breach of Uber’s non-delegable duty to provide safe transportation. The plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages and demands a jury trial.
Uber Sexual Assault MDL Sees Record Growth as Settlement Pressure Mounts
April 1, 2025: March brought a wave of momentum to the Uber sexual assault litigation. A staggering 283 new cases were added to the MDL—up from just 36 in February—bringing the total to 1,883. This is the highest monthly case volume we have seen. The sheer number of new filings is precisely the kind of pressure that accelerates global settlement talks. Uber knows the risk of allowing even one of these cases to go before a jury. With bellwether cases already taking shape, we expect Uber to come to the table with serious settlement offers sooner rather than later. It is extremely unlikely they would let a strong case go to trial.
MORE Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Updates 👈
Preview of Bellwether Test Cases
March 17, 2025: At the end of last week, amended complaints were filed in all bellwether cases that are currently scheduled for trial (if a global settlement deal is not reached first). The procedural maneuverings that prompted the amended complaints are not all that interesting. What is interesting is that this gives us a chance to easily review and compare the basic facts of all of these cases, which could potentially determine the outcome of this litigation.
The facts in the bellwether cases run the full spectrum of scenarios and potential liability on the part of Uber. Some of the bellwether cases present very weak cases in which there was no physical touching (just creepy looks and verbal harassment) and the Uber driver had no clear criminal history or red flags. At the other end of the spectrum are cases like Jane Doe QLF 001 v. Uber Technologies (3:24-cv-08387), where an Uber driver in Texas sexually assaulted the victim. The driver had a criminal record and had actually been charged with sexual assault.
Privilege Log
March 12, 2025: Master Order No. 3 was issued yesterday. It sets clear rules for how Uber must handle privileged documents in this lawsuit about passenger sexual assaults. When a company claims a document is “privileged,” it means it believes it is confidential and does not have to share it. This often includes legal advice or internal company discussions.
A privilege log is a list of these withheld documents that shows details such as the date, who sent them, who received them, and why the company believes they are protected. This order focuses on two key areas: documents related to depositions scheduled after April 10, 2025, and documents created after November 2023 that might still be relevant. The court has laid out a step-by-step system for plaintiffs to challenge Uber’s privilege claims, for a neutral reviewer (called the Master) to decide which documents must be turned over, and for depositions to move forward on time, even if disputes about documents are still ongoing.
This order is significant for plaintiffs because it prevents Uber from delaying the case by withholding key evidence for too long. If Uber refuses to provide documents that could help prove the claims, plaintiffs now have a clear and enforceable process to challenge those privilege claims before depositions occur.
This is helpful because depositions are opportunities to question Uber’s employees under oath, and plaintiffs need access to as much evidence as possible to ask the right questions. The order also stops Uber from using delay tactics to weaken the case. Some companies try to slow litigation by constantly appealing privilege disputes, hoping the other side will lose momentum.
Bellwether Trial Selections Made
February 26, 2025: Plaintiffs’ lawyers and Uber’s legal team have each submitted the ten lawsuits they believe should go to trial first. Bellwether trials are critical in mass litigation, as they provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ arguments. If juries return significant verdicts for plaintiffs, Uber may be more inclined to negotiate fair settlements rather than risk further losses at trial. Will that ever happen? Yes, these cases will be aggressively prepared for trial, with extensive discovery, expert testimony, and pretrial motions shaping the evidence to be presented to a jury. But we think it is unlikely that Uber would be foolish enough to let even one of their handpicked defense cases go before a jury. If history is any guide and Uber’s attorney employ common sense, Uber will attempt to settle cases before they face the risks of a public trial and the potential for a massive verdict.
New Special Master Issues Ruling
February 20, 2025: The special master court has issued Master Order No. 2 to manage privilege disputes over attorney-client and work product protections. A special master was appointed to oversee this process and resolve disagreements. The order sets deadlines for Uber to produce revised privilege logs and redacted documents ahead of key depositions. The review follows two tracks: for early depositions (February-March), privilege issues will be resolved after testimony, while for later depositions (March-April), privilege disputes will be settled beforehand. Plaintiffs can challenge privilege claims through a structured process, including meetings, document reviews, and appeals if needed. The court aims to keep the case moving while ensuring both sides comply with discovery rules.
MDL Versus Class Action Lawsuit
February 10, 2025: Many people searching for information on the Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit do not realize that these cases are actually part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) rather than a traditional class action lawsuit. In a class action, all plaintiffs are grouped into a single lawsuit, and any settlement or verdict is divided among all members. But as we explain more fully below, the Uber sexual assault MDL (MDL No. 3084) consolidates individual lawsuits into one court for pretrial proceedings, allowing each case to be handled separately based on its unique facts.
This means that unlike a class action lawsuit, where every plaintiff receives the same outcome, Uber sexual assault victims in the MDL can seek individual settlements or take their cases to trial. The Uber sexual assault lawsuit MDL provides a more tailored approach for victims, ensuring that those with severe claims have a chance at higher compensation rather than being bound by a uniform payout structure.
While an Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit does not technically exist, the MDL functions similarly by streamlining legal proceedings, improving efficiency, and pressuring Uber to negotiate settlements. Plaintiffs in the MDL are still able to argue their cases independently, meaning some could receive larger settlements or jury awards depending on the strength of their claims.
The MDL continues to grow, with over 1,500 cases as of 2025. It is the largest grouping of rideshare sexual assault lawsuits in U.S. history.
Pretrial Discovery Battles
February 2, 2025: From the beginning, we have told you that the key to every rideshare sexual assault lawsuit is what the companies’ documents show. So it should come as not suprise that the lawyers remain at odds over the scope of discovery related to Uber’s marketing practices, particularly the company’s safety-related advertising.
In a joint status report filed on Wednesday, plaintiffs underscored that Uber’s extensive marketing campaign—touting the platform as a safe transportation option—is central to their fraud and non-fraud claims, including issues of duty, foreseeability, and punitive damages. They assert that Uber alone possesses critical records detailing the scope and impact of its marketing efforts, which plaintiffs need to substantiate their allegations. Uber, however, continues to push back. The company maintains that the court has already dismissed fraud-based claims due to a lack of plaintiff-specific allegations about reliance on marketing. Defendants argue that general advertising materials are irrelevant unless a plaintiff can demonstrate they personally saw and relied on specific ads.
While Uber has agreed to produce a sample communications log for conferral purposes, it argues that much of the plaintiffs’ broader discovery requests “strain the bounds of relevance.” Key disputes remain unresolved, including:
- Bloc & Flow Reporting: Uber is still determining whether its internal marketing system tracks email engagement and whether such reports can be produced.
- Communication Logs: Plaintiffs demand detailed logs of marketing messages sent to individual bellwether plaintiffs, but Uber claims such records do not exist in the requested format.
- Marketing Document Declaration: Plaintiffs seek a sworn statement outlining Uber’s historical and current marketing archives, similar to declarations previously ordered on policy disclosures.
New Texas Uber Lawsuit in MDL
January 25, 2025: In the latest Uber sex assault lawsuit, a woman from San Antonio, Texas, sued Uber , alleging that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her during a ride arranged through the company’s platform. The suit says that on February 2, 2023, the plaintiff was subjected to severe sexual misconduct by the driver, including indecent exposure, masturbation, and solicitation for oral sex.
Lyft Driver Sexual Assault Lawsuit
January 23 2025: Colorado state rep. Jenny Willford sued Lyft after alleging she was sexually assaulted by a driver using a fake profile tied to someone with a criminal record. The incident occurred in February 2024 and involved nonconsensual touching and lewd remarks. Lyft allegedly refunded her fare and blocked future rides with the driver—but did nothing more.
The lawsuit claims Lyft failed to vet drivers properly and enabled known offenders to operate on its platform. Willford accuses Lyft and Shanu Transportation of negligence, fraud, and violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Lyft faces similar sex assault lawsuits in multiple states.
U.S. Safety Report Data Production
January 14, 2025: The legal teams involved in the Uber sexual assault class action have submitted a joint letter to the court concerning the production of U.S. Safety Report data. This letter follows the court’s orders from December 19 and 24, 2024, detailing the agreed-upon procedures for data production related to Uber’s safety reports. Working well on this one, the lawyers have resolved prior issues concerning access to and functionality of the data. Now, Uber will produce a comprehensive dataset, including all new and previously produced data, not merely a supplemental update.
Under the agreement, Uber will produce files and data linked to up to 375 safety incidents (i.e., reports of sexual assaults) selected by the plaintiffs, following a specific timeline through early 2025. The plaintiffs will choose incidents in three batches, with the first set due by January 24 and the final by February 14. Uber is then required to complete all data productions by March 14, 2025.
This phased approach allows for structured review and potential identification of issues as new data is analyzed. The letter also outlines the parties’ commitment to resolve any further access or functionality issues cooperatively, with the plaintiffs, of course, reserving the right to bring any unresolved concerns back to the court.
Discovery Fights
January 13, 2025: Uber really wants to avoid producing documents in this litigation, and the court is not allowing it. The magistrate judge again rejected Uber’s efforts to limit the production of documents created after November 27, 2023. The court reaffirmed the need for transparency, setting a firm cutoff date of December 1, 2024, for custodial documents while allowing plaintiffs to seek narrowly tailored discovery of key documents created beyond that date
. Hopefully, this ensures that Uber cannot evade accountability for more recent policies or decisions that could directly affect its passengers’ safety. By establishing specific deadlines for production and prioritizing key custodians, the court emphasized that Uber must meet its discovery obligations without further delay. The ruling also addressed Uber’s attempts to slow down depositions, particularly of former employees who lack recent documents.
The court rejected any unnecessary delays and clarified that the MDL will not adjust its timeline to accommodate Uber’s coordination with state-court proceedings.
New Arizona Lawsuit
January 11, 2024: In a new lawsuit filed on Friday, a resident of Peoria, Arizona, identified as Jane Roe CL 95 in court documents, brought a case against Uber. The lawsuit centers on allegations that Jane Roe was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a ride in Flagstaff, Arizona, on January 11, 2023. The plaintiff claims that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures, including proper vetting and monitoring of its drivers, thereby creating a dangerous environment for passengers. The ride in question was facilitated through the Uber platform, and the assault allegedly occurred between two locations in Flagstaff. The plaintiff contends that Uber’s negligence in its driver screening, training, and oversight directly contributed to the harm suffered.
Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Prospects
January 6, 2025: Uber sexual assault lawsuits in MDL No. 3084 and in California state court are likely to have high settlement payouts. First, these cases often involve horrific and deeply personal trauma. Juries and courts tend to view such claims with compassion and a desire to hold parties accountable. There are a lot of guideposts for settlements like this and they all point to seven-figure settlements for serious cases. Uber’s role as a major corporation with a massive global presence only amplifies the stakes. When a company’s business model involves putting strangers in close quarters, any failure to ensure safety can be seen as a significant lapse.
That’s not something jurors or corporate attorneys take lightly. The narrative that Uber just wanted to get more and more drivers on the road…well, there is already a movie out there pushing that premise. It is not a hard sell. Another reason is the optics. Uber markets itself as a safe, convenient transportation solution, but when incidents like these occur, it can shatter public trust.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys will highlight every opportunity Uber missed to prevent these assaults—background checks, safety features, and failure to respond to earlier complaints. If Uber’s negligence appears systemic, it sets the stage for not just payouts but major reputational damage—and Uber knows it. Settling for significant amounts can sometimes seem cheaper than taking the risk of a trial and the PR nightmare that comes with it.
Major verdicts against Uber will knock them back in the eyes of the public and give legs to their competitors, who have struggled to keep up with Uber. When you add it all up—severe harm to victims, glaring safety lapses, and a giant corporation with deep pockets—you can see why seven-figure settlements are a safe bet. Victims in these cases have life-altering injuries, and juries are often willing to award significant amounts to help them rebuild their lives. Uber, on the other hand, has the resources to pay, and the motivation to avoid more headlines. Expect these settlements to be significant.
Where These Cases Are Coming From
January 5, 2025: Last week saw a notable uptick in the number of new Uber passenger lawsuits filed in the MDL, with a striking pattern emerging: a disproportionate number of these lawsuits originate from California, Georgia, Ohio, New York, and Illinois. At first glance, this concentration might seem logical given that these are among the most populous states with substantial urban centers and heavy rideshare usage. Cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, New York City, and Cleveland serve as hubs for rideshare activity, naturally increasing the volume of incidents involving rideshare platforms.
However, the sheer volume of cases from these states cannot be entirely attributed to population density or rideshare activity alone. What sets these jurisdictions apart is the aggressive legal advertising campaigns aimed at raising awareness among potential plaintiffs.
According to a recent study on legal advertising trends, these states are among the top spenders in legal marketing, particularly in personal injury and consumer protection cases. For example, California alone accounted for nearly 18% of all personal injury legal ad spending in the United States this year. Similarly, Georgia and Illinois saw sharp increases in rideshare-specific legal campaigns following high-profile settlements. This aggressive advertising has a measurable impact.
Studies indicate that awareness campaigns can increase claim filings by up to 40% in targeted jurisdictions, as they educate potential plaintiffs about their legal rights and encourage them to come forward. Lawyers in these areas leverage social media, search engines, and even rideshare apps to reach potential claimants. Our law firm does not do social media or other advertising. All we have are lawyer referrals and these website properties. But this is one of those situations where legal advertising might be good because it lets women know about the opportunity to achieve some measure of justice through settlement compensation from Uber.
MDL Adds 30 Cases
January 3, 2025: Just under 30 new cases were added to the Uber driver sexual assault MDL during the month of December. That is slightly down from the 48 new cases added the previous month. There are now 1,487 total pending cases in the MDL. These lawsuits will continue to be filed in 2025. In one new Uber sexual assault lawsuit filed just yesterday, a passenger from Sulphur, Louisiana, identified as C.L., has brought claims against Uber Technologies and related companies alleging that they failed to ensure her safety during a ride facilitated through the Uber platform.
Claims include negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, as well as vicarious liability for the driver’s actions. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the physical, emotional, and economic harm caused by the assault. It also demands that Uber enhance safety measures to prevent future incidents. This case underscores ongoing scrutiny of rideshare companies’ responsibilities to protect passengers from harm.
Bellwether Game Plan
December 27, 2024: The plan to get to the first trial is getting clearer. Each side must select 10 plaintiffs by February 14, 2025, to form a bellwether discovery pool of 20 potential cases. Plaintiffs in this group will file amended complaints by March 14, 2025, after which case-specific discovery will proceed.
The court’s pretrial order outlines a structured schedule to prepare these cases for trial. Discovery will close on September 22, 2025, with Daubert motions (which challenge expert testimony) and dispositive motions (which aim to resolve cases without a trial) due by October 8, 2025. The first bellwether trial is set to begin on December 8, 2025, marking a critical step in testing the strength of these claims before juries. If a case goes to trial, the result will impact Uber sexual assault settlement amounts. But it would surprise us if Uber let one of these lawsuits go to trial. Our take is these cases will reach a global settlement long before there is a trial.
New Florida Uber MDL Lawsuit
April 7, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in the Northern District of California, a plaintiff from Kissimmee, Florida, filed suit against Uber alleging she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a ride arranged through the platform in Alachua County, Florida, on May 6, 2023. She was the account holder who requested the ride and claims that Uber and its affiliated entities failed in their duty to ensure passenger safety.
The complaint adopts the causes of action asserted in the MDL’s Master Long-Form Complaint, including claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and breach of Uber’s non-delegable duty to provide safe transportation. The plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages and demands a jury trial.
New Court Order on Privileged Documents
December 1, 2024
In the Uber sexual assault litigation, the court tackled disputes over whether certain documents Uber withheld as “privileged” are genuinely protected. Companies like Uber sometimes copy lawyers on emails or label documents as “privileged” to shield sensitive information during litigation, even if the content isn’t primarily about legal advice. We see this all of the time in mass tort cases and, too often, the judge let’s the defendants get away with it.
The MDL judge is not taking that path. The court emphasized that privilege only applies when the dominant purpose of a document is legal advice—not business strategy, public relations, or general communications about sensitive issues. In reviewing ten documents, the court found that many, like drafts of PR emails and internal updates, were business-related and not protected, even though lawyers were involved. The court criticized Uber for vague privilege claims and ordered the company to clarify its logs and produce non-privileged documents.
This ruling helps ensures that Uber cannot hide key evidence in the sexual assault lawsuits under the guise of privilege which is a win for us.
New Illinois Lawsuit
November 25, 2024
In a new lawsuit filed on Friday, an Illinois woman sued Uber in the MDL after being sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in Cook County, Illinois in November 2022.
Uber and Plaintiffs Both Seek Lyft Documents
October 30, 2024
Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros has ruled on a discovery dispute involving Lyft in the Uber sexual assault MDL. Plaintiffs subpoenaed Lyft for details about the employees responsible for Uber-related communications in the Industry Sharing Safety Program (ISSP), wanting assurance that the correct individuals—not peripheral staff—are identified. Lyft must provide those names by November 8, or meet with plaintiffs to resolve disagreements.
The Court also addressed Uber’s request to review Lyft’s production for privileged material. Plaintiffs argue privilege does not apply since communications involved a third party, while Lyft maintains that a shared interest in safety may preserve some privilege.
Judge Cisneros ruled that Lyft must produce all unprivileged documents and privilege logs by December 17, 2024, allowing Uber’s privilege review to move forward under those conditions.
Internal Documents Reveal Uber’s “Safety Assurance” Strategies
October 15, 2024
One of the things Uber sex abuse lawyers are learning is that Uber was aware of significant safety risks and potential passenger harm from gaps in its driver screening processes. Internal communications outline “safety assurance” strategies aimed at minimizing public perception of these risks, while actual enhancements in background checks and monitoring were delayed or deprioritized. Plaintiffs argue that these documents demonstrate Uber’s pattern of minimizing driver-related safety risks for financial gain, bolstering their claims of negligence and responsibility.
Some of the things they should have been doing, they are doing now. In response to ongoing litigation and mounting safety concerns, Uber implemented several new safety features, including RideCheck (to monitor deviations during rides), a PIN verification system, and encrypted audio recording of trips. It is hard to imagine these are not a part of Uber’s response to the sexual assault lawsuits, which have spotlighted serious gaps—to put in generously—in their safety protocols.
Front-Facing Cameras
September 18, 2024
Uber has started testing video recording during rides in select cities, allowing drivers to use front-facing cameras to record their trips. The latest new city is Washington, D.C. While this feature is still in a pilot phase and not widely available, it complements their existing audio recording option. Both video and audio recordings are encrypted and can only be accessed if the driver or rider submits a safety report.
Is this the solution that solves everything? Of course not. But efforts like this are long overdue and would have protected a lot of women who have been sexually assaulted and raped by Uber drivers.
Motion to Dismiss Counts in California and Texas
August 16, 2024
Uber convinced the MDL judge to dismiss certain product liability claims under California and Texas law, narrowing the master complaint in the sexual assault MDL. The court ruled that allegations like inadequate background checks and lack of emergency support are service-related failures, not app design defects. The judge emphasized that Uber’s failure to ensure safety does not equate to releasing a defective product, and that the complaint did not connect missing app features to specific assaults.
This ruling only affects claims under California and Texas law and does not prevent the case from moving forward. Plaintiffs still have viable claims that will go to a jury. The court has allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint, and those revisions will be discussed at the August 29, 2024 Case Management Conference.
Even if product defect claims cannot be revived, this MDL remains strong. If necessary, more cases could shift to state courts—which may not be a bad outcome for plaintiffs.
New Lawsuit by Victim in Dallas
July 25, 2024
A new Uber driver sex abuse lawsuit was recently filed in the MDL by a woman from Dallas. According to the complaint, the woman was in an Uber in the Dallas Arts district when her Uber driver pulled the car over and jumped on top of her. He ripped her pants and attempted to pull her underwear off before she was able to beat him off and escape from the car. She called an ambulance and reported the incident to authorities.
Uber Has 21 Categories of Sexual Misconduct by Drivers
July 19, 2024
Ten days ago, the magistrate judge ordered Uber to produce data and documents related to alleged incidents of sexual assault and misconduct from 2017 to 2020. These incidents were the basis for Uber’s 2019 and 2022 Safety Reports, which only covered the five most serious of the twenty-one categories of sexual misconduct identified by Uber. If that sentence reads crazy to you, that is because it is.
The court agreed, rejecting the argument that reports from the other sixteen categories were unreliable and should not be subject to discovery. Uber indicated it would provide PDF printouts of each report, while Plaintiffs requested data exports from Uber’s JIRA, Bliss, and Zendesk databases.
The magistrate judge granted Plaintiffs’ request for information about all fields in these databases and their decoders, with a deadline for Uber to comply by today.
Uber Sexual Assaults
Uber has become a major company with billions in revenue. Uber drivers transport millions of passengers every year in all 50 states in the U.S. Uber drivers are technically not employees but rather independent contractors.
Over the last decade, Uber has been facing a steadily growing tide of complaints, public scrutiny, and civil lawsuits involving Uber drivers detaining and sexually assaulting their rideshare passengers. Ever since Uber started getting really big, complaints and stories have regularly surfaced about Uber drivers subjecting their passengers to sexual assault. The incidents often follow a similar pattern in which an Uber driver picks up a vulnerable passenger in the vehicle. Instead of taking them to their destination, take them to a secluded area and sexually assault them in the car.
According to Uber’s own safety and incident reporting data, Uber receives an average of 3,000 to 7,000 reports of alleged sexual assault from Uber passengers each year. The majority of these involve allegations of non-consensual sexual touching. But a smaller percentage of the incidents involve much more severe allegations, including forcible rape. Of course, these are just the numbers self-reported by Uber, and they probably do not reflect the true level.
Allegations in Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Uber is a defendant in a growing number of civil lawsuits filed by rideshare passengers who claim that an Uber driver sexually assaulted them. The lawsuits accuse Uber of failing to properly screen and perform background checks on Uber drivers before hiring them.
Growth Before Safety
The Uber sexual assault lawsuits claim that the company was not concerned only with rapid growth and had no concern for passenger safety. They claim that Uber made it possible for Uber drivers to sign up. To do this, Uber used a background check system designed to get drivers approved as quickly and conveniently as possible.
The plaintiffs in this case argue that Uber has systematically misrepresented its service as exceptionally safe, which is central to attracting customers who prioritize security, especially when deciding to ride alone with strangers.
To establish and grow its customer base, Uber branded itself not merely as a tech platform, but as a transportation provider, implying a higher level of accountability for passenger safety. Marketing slogans like “safest rides on the road” and “a ride you can trust” were used extensively, despite the company’s early knowledge from 2014 onwards that their safety assurances were misleading.
Background Checks
For instance, Uber initially claimed to offer top-tier background checks and charged a “Safe Ride Fee” suggesting enhanced safety measures, though the fee was not allocated for safety but added to profits.
Uber used a company called Hirease, Inc. to do its background checks. Hirease brags that it can vet drivers within 36 hours. To have such a short turnaround, Uber disregarded industry standards used by other taxi companies and livery services.
For example, it abandoned fingerprinting and ran applicant drivers against private databases, such as FBI records. These shortcuts led to growth for Uber. But it put women at risk. At one point, Uber was so fixated on growth that it began mailing cell phones to applicant drivers so they could begin driving before Uber’s cursory and ineffective background check was even complete.
The lawsuits also allege that executives at Uber decided not to interview drivers or train drivers to ensure Uber’s drivers understood their responsibilities and what was appropriate and inappropriate when interacting with passengers.
Nothing to Protect Women from Sexual Assault
The lawsuits against Uber claim that the company failed to implement essential safety measures to protect passengers from sexual assault. Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s refusal to enforce a zero-tolerance policy concerning inappropriate behavior, including making sexual advances or engaging in sexual activity with passengers, amounted to gross negligence. This includes allowing drivers to fraternize with passengers and engage in behaviors that could lead to assault, which plaintiffs believe could have been easily addressed with stricter company policies.
The legal claims further allege that Uber’s decision to rely on a superficial background check process exacerbated the issue. Fingerprint-based background checks have been used forever by taxi companies, who are hardly a beacon of safety procedures. Yet Uber chose a less thorough screening process that allowed drivers with histories of violent or sexual offenses to be hired. Plaintiffs assert that this negligent approach created a dangerous environment for passengers and led to an increase in sexual assault incidents by drivers. This failure to properly screen drivers, combined with the lack of strict internal policies to prevent misconduct, forms the basis of the lawsuits. The common thread with Uber is it prioritized growth and profits over passenger safety. This point cannot be made enough.
Uber’s Growth, Driver Recruitment, Sexual Assault Allegations, and Safety Changes
2009
Uber Founded
Uber is launched in San Francisco as a luxury car service under the name “UberCab.” The company seeks to revolutionize transportation through an app-based ride-hailing system.
2011
Uber Expands Nationwide
Uber expands rapidly across major U.S. cities, leveraging aggressive growth strategies and minimal regulatory oversight.
2012
UberX Launches
Uber introduces UberX, a lower-cost ride service using everyday drivers, significantly increasing its market penetration.
2014
First High-Profile Sexual Assault Allegations
Reports of sexual assault by Uber drivers begin to surface. A case in India, where a driver rapes a passenger, leads to a ban of Uber in Delhi.
“Safe Ride Fee” Introduced
Uber adds a “Safe Ride Fee” to each trip, claiming it funds safety improvements, but investigations later suggest, consistent with what you would expect from Uber, especially 11 years ago, the fouus was for it to be a revenue source.
2015
First U.S. Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Victims of sexual assaults by Uber drivers begin filing lawsuits against the company, arguing its screening process is inadequate.
2016
Growing Reports of Sexual Assault
Investigations reveal over 100 Uber drivers in the U.S. have been accused of sexual assault or harassment.
2017
Uber Faces Workplace Sexual Harassment Scandal
Former Uber employee Susan Fowler exposes a toxic culture of sexual harassment within Uber’s corporate offices, leading to leadership shakeups. The fish rots from the head down.
2018
First Safety Report Released
Uber releases its first-ever safety report, revealing a mind-boggling 6,000 sexual assault allegations in 2017-2018.
2019
Uber Introduces Safety Features
Uber rolls out RideCheck, PIN verification, and encrypted audio recording to improve safety.
2020
Second Safety Report Released
Uber’s updated safety report in 2020 showed a decline in reported sexual assault cases but still revealed that thousands of incidents had occurred. While Uber touted a decline is sexual assaults as a big win, the numbers remained alarmingly high.
2021
Surge in Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Victims continue filing lawsuits against Uber, increasing legal pressure on the company.
2022
MDL Formation
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidates Uber sexual assault lawsuits into MDL No. 3084 in the Northern District of California.
2023
MDL Cases Grow
The MDL surpasses 1,400 cases, and discovery reveals Uber executives knew about safety risks.
2024
Uber Introduces More Safety Measures
Uber rolls out front-facing cameras and enhanced driver screenings amid legal battles. This is too little to late for many women but still a step in the right direction.
2025
Bellwether Trials Dates
The first Uber sexual assault trial date will be set early in 2025. Uber sex abuse lawyers remain optimistic Uber will come its senses and offer settlement amounts that are big enough to entice victims to settle these lawsuits long before that first bellwether trial.
Uber Sexual Assault Class Action
There is now an Uber class action lawsuit for sexual assault cases. Actually, that statement is not technically correct. This is an MDL, not a class action. Our sexual abuse lawyers call it a class action because that is what people call it. But an MDL is actually a little different.
An MDL is a legal procedure used in federal court systems to consolidate multiple civil cases that share common factual issues into a single district court. This process streamlines pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motions, to increase efficiency, reduce court costs, and ensure consistent rulings across similar cases.
Every Uber sexual assault lawsuit will have the same elements of what Uber knew about the sexual assault of its clients and what it did to try to keep women safe. In the Uber MDL, pretrial discovery will be the same for all Uber sex abuse lawsuits.
In October 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) agreed to consolidate all of the pending Uber sexual assault cases in federal courts into a new class action MDL. The Uber sexual assault MDL has been assigned to a judge in the Northern District of California.
This means that all future Uber sexual assault cases filed in federal court will be automatically transferred into the MDL. The cases in the MDL will go through the process of consolidated discovery. Then, a handful of representative cases will be selected for bellwether test trials. The results of these test trials are then intended to help both sides negotiate a settlement, providing them with an idea of what to expect if the remaining cases were to go to trial.
So if you have a federal court Uber sex abuse lawsuit in New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, or any other state, your lawsuit will be transferred to California for consolidated proceedings. If no Uber sexual assault settlement comes out of the MDL, your case will get returned to federal court in your state. (You can also file a lawsuit in California state court as well as we discuss above.)
Our rideshare sexual assault attorneys fully expect that the documents uncovered during the pretrial discovery process will be devastating for Uber. These internal records are likely to reveal the true scale of the sexual assault crisis involving drivers and the company’s long-standing failure to act. The cases in this litigation are not isolated incidents—they include horrible allegations ranging from groping and sexual battery to kidnapping and rape.
This particular grouping of lawsuits within the rideshare sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL) centers on passengers who Uber drivers sexually assaulted. The plaintiffs argue that Uber has the means and the obligation to make its platform safer, but has consistently failed to do so. They point to weak background checks, failure to suspend or remove drivers after credible allegations, and an overall disregard for rider safety.
What these lawsuits demand is accountability. Plaintiffs are calling for meaningful changes, such as fingerprint-based background checks, automatic dashcam monitoring of rides, and stronger driver oversight—many of which Uber is only now beginning to implement. The MDL structure increases pressure on Uber and creates a path toward a global sexual assault settlement that could finally bring justice to hundreds, possibly thousands, of survivors.
How to Determine Settlement Compensation or Jury Awards in Sexual Assault Lawsuits Against Uber
Determining settlement compensation and jury payouts in Uber sexual assault lawsuits involves a variety of variables, and the variables have different weights.
- Severity of the Assault: The nature and severity of the sexual assault play a crucial role. More severe or violent assaults often result in higher settlements or awards. There are Uber rape cases and Uber sexual harassment cases. The settlement compensation for the latter, all things being equal, will be lower.
- Physical Injuries: The extent and nature of any physical injuries sustained by the victim can significantly impact the amount. As you would expect, more severe physical injuries typically lead to higher compensation. That said, some of the most serious rideshare sexual assault lawsuits have no physical injury.
- Emotional and Psychological Trauma: Sexual assault often results in long-lasting emotional and psychological harm. The severity of this trauma and its impact on the victim’s life are critical factors.
- Medical and Therapy Costs: The cost of medical treatment and psychological counseling required as a result of the assault is usually recoverable. This includes both past and future expected costs. Are these costs necessary to bring a viable claim? Of course not.
- Punitive Damages: Our lawyers talk more about this below. In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded to punish egregious conduct and deter similar acts in the future. The likelihood and amount of punitive damages depend on the defendant’s behavior.
- Defendant’s Ability to Pay: In most sex abuse lawsuits, the first question is whether the defendant can pay a settlement or judgment. That is not a problem here. They have, of course, endless money for settlements and verdicts.
- Publicity and Reputational Considerations: Uber desperately avoids negative publicity in high-profile cases. Uber does not want to try cases; it wants iron-tight confidentiality clauses when it settles them.
- Age and Vulnerability of the Victim: The victim’s age and any vulnerabilities may be considered, especially in cases involving children or individuals with disabilities. You will see below a rideshare lawsuit involving an 11-year-old girl. Of course, that drives settlement compensation.
- Case Strength and Evidence: You need to be able to make your case at trial. The strength of the case, including the availability and quality of evidence, will impact not only the likelihood of winning at trial but also the amount of a settlement or award. What makes for strong evidence in a sexual assault lawsuit? A credible plaintiff. That alone is often enough.
Settlement Amounts for Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Most mass tort MDLs eventually get resolved in a global settlement deal in which the defendant pays a large sum of money to resolve all pending cases. Individual cases are then ranked into tiers based on a points system based on various factors such as the strength of evidence and the severity of the sexual assault. Cases in the highest tiers get bigger settlement payouts than those in the lower tiers.
Our lawyers think that the settlement tier values for Uber sexual assault cases could be in the range of $300,000 to $800,000. But we also expect settlements that go past $1 million. And cases in the highest tiers will be those involving forcible rape with strong evidence could go into the millions. Lower-tier cases will be those involving lesser degrees of sexual assault. Any eventual Uber misconduct settlement will likely be in the billions in terms of total compensation paid out to victims.
Of course, it is early in this litigation. We have a long way to go. If you want to call our estimated average Uber sexual assault settlement to be a guess, that would not be unfair. But our lawyers are really bullish on this litigation, and we think people want to know what lawyers predict regarding settlement payouts, so we provide it here.
Sexual Assault Verdicts and Settlements
Below are summaries of settlements and verdicts in sexual assault cases involving situations similar to Uber driver sexual assaults. What our lawyers are trying to do here is give you a flavor of how similar sex abuse lawsuits play out.
Obviously, there are limits, and how instructive a scattering of jury payout and settlement amounts in sexual assault cases is to understanding appropriate compensation. This is one tool of many to understand better how to put a settlement compensation amount on a sexual assault lawsuit against Uber.
- $130,000 Verdict (Oregon): The plaintiff was a front-seat passenger in a taxi cab driven by the defendant’s driver. The plaintiff contended that he driver rubbed her leg, groped her breast, grabbed her hand, placed it on his groin, and tried to kiss her without her consent. The event was captured with black and white still images from the taxi cab. The defendant admitted liability, and the only issue at trial was damages. Our Uber sex assault lawyers think the exact same case would get a higher settlement amount in the MDL.
- $9,000,000 Settlement (Pennsylvania): A man – an evil man – orchestrated a meeting with an 11-year-old via Instagram. He used Lyft to transport the girl to a Days Inn hotel, where he sexually assaulted her. The girl’s rideshare sexual assault attorneys sued Lyft and, later, the Days Inn because it did not take sufficient actions to prevent the incident. The lawsuit, filed by the girl and her mother, accused Lyft of failing to enforce its policy against drivers transporting unaccompanied minors, as Lyft drivers transported the girl to meet the assailant. Lyft and two Days Inn hotels agreed to a $9 million settlement payout to settle their sexual assault lawsuit.
- $400,000 Settlement (Virginia): An unemployed singer and actress in her early 30s allegedly was raped by the male co-defendant taxi driver. The plaintiff claimed posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the alleged assault. The co-defendant offered to drive the plaintiff to a hospital emergency room with an injured friend and subsequently engaged in sexual intercourse in the taxi. The plaintiff contended that the co-defendant raped her. The defendants contended that the intercourse was voluntary, and the cab company contended that the co-defendant was not on duty.
- $620,000 Settlement (California): The plaintiff was a mentally disabled woman in her 30s who relied on cab service to get around. The defendant was her regular cab driver, and he sexually assaulted her numerous times. The plaintiff had repeatedly asked the disability cab service for a different driver, but nothing was done. The driver allegedly fondled her breasts and genitals by means of force and deceit. The plaintiff said she did not consent to the touching. The plaintiff also said that the defendant would force her to sit beside him and would drive to an alley behind her home, lock the doors, restrain her, and sexually assault her.
Punitive Damages May Drive Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Payouts
Every Uber rideshare sexual assault lawsuit will allege that the company has been aware at least since 2014 of ongoing issues with sexual predators among its drivers assaulting passengers. Despite numerous passenger complaints, police investigations, and legal actions related to driver misconduct, Uber failed to take adequate safety measures to protect its passengers. Uber’s executives consciously chose not to enforce stringent background checks for drivers.
Why? These suits allege that the company put women’s safety on the back burner to satisfy its passion for rapid expansion and profit maximization. To expand, you need drivers and lots of them. This decision to prioritize financial growth over passenger safety led to the neglect of implementing crucial safety precautions.
Uber could have done the right thing and put in safety measures, including thorough background checks, biometric fingerprinting, job interviews, electronic monitoring systems, and strict policies against driver misconduct. Why not?
Again, these precautions were allegedly deemed costly and potentially harmful to Uber’s reputation. Consequently, under the direction of its executive officers, Uber opted to disregard these essential safety measures, thereby increasing the risk of assault, rape, kidnapping, and exploitation for passengers. So this lawsuit will continue to push the argument that Uber’s game plan prioritized cost and image over implementing robust safety protocols, demonstrating a reckless disregard for passenger well-being.
Not in every jurisdiction, but in many, these allegations will allow attorneys for sexual assault victims to submit punitive damages to a jury. Punitive damages are financial penalties imposed on a defendant in a lawsuit intended to punish particularly harmful behavior and deter similar misconduct in the future. Unlike compensatory damages, which aim to compensate the victim for their loss, punitive damages are awarded when the defendant’s actions are deemed especially egregious or recklessly negligent.
Our attorneys think juries will be primed to award significant punitive damages in cases where a defendant’s failure to protect women’s safety is found to be egregiously negligent or indicative of a disregard for the well-being of others.
These substantial financial penalties are imposed to punish the defendant for their neglect and serve as a strong deterrent against similar neglectful behavior. Uber knows this, and this risk will increase settlement amounts for every rideshare sexual assault lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Has Uber faced lawsuits related to sexual assault?
How many Uber sexual assault cases have been reported?
What legal action has been taken against Uber?
What safety measures has Uber implemented in response to sexual assault cases?
Uber has introduced several safety features in response to growing legal and public pressure, including:
– RideCheck (monitors unusual ride activity)
– PIN verification (ensures passengers enter the correct car)
– In-app emergency button (contacts 911 with GPS location)
– Encrypted audio recording (available in select locations)
– Stronger driver screening processes, including real-time background checks
Despite these changes, which are productive changes, Uber sex abuse lawsuits argue that these measures are still too little and implemented too late, and that serious gaps remain in Uber’s driver vetting process.
What is the Uber sexual assault MDL?
How much are Uber sexual assault settlements worth?
We talk about expected rideshare sexual assault settlements in much greater detail abovle.
There is no fixed settlement amount, but legal experts predict that Uber sexual assault lawsuit settlements could range from $300,000 to $2 million per case, depending on:
– The severity of the assault
– Whether the driver had a history of misconduct
– The strength of the evidence linking Uber’s negligence to the attack
– State-specific legal factors (including the availability of punitive damages)
Are there similar lawsuits against Lyft?
Yes, Lyft has also faced rideshare sexual assault lawsuits, similar to the ongoing litigation against Uber. Plaintiffs argue that both companies failed to implement necessary safety measures to protect passengers from driver misconduct, despite being aware of the risks. These lawsuits claim that Lyft, like Uber, prioritized growth and profits over passenger safety, failing to conduct adequate background checks, properly monitor drivers, or respond effectively to reports of sexual assault. We think Lyft felt like it had to cut corners to keep up with Uber.
A few years ago, Lyft released its first-ever safety report, revealing over 4,000 sexual assault incidents between 2017 and 2019. The report acknowledged a wide range of misconduct, from non-consensual touching to rape, highlighting the widespread nature of the issue within the rideshare industry. While Lyft has introduced certain safety features, such as continuous background checks and in-app emergency assistance. But these measures are still insufficient. These have been knee-jerk reactive changes rather than genuinely preventative.
The lawsuits against Lyft allege that the company failed to warn riders about the known dangers, allowed drivers with histories of misconduct to remain on the platform, and did not implement effective safety policies to prevent assaults. Like Uber, Lyft has attempted to shift blame onto individual drivers rather than acknowledging systemic failures. As litigation continues, rideshare companies face increasing legal pressure to take responsibility and compensate survivors for the harm they have endured.
What is the status of Uber’s bellwether trials?
Why doesn’t Uber just settle all of these sexual assault suits at once right now?
Uber is a multi-billion dollar company with the financial resources to settle every Uber sexual assault lawsuit tomorrow without breaking a sweat. So why hasn’t it? Uber wants to pay as little as possible.
Uber’s legal team is using delaying tactics in discovery—fighting over document production, privilege logs, and pretrial motions, as we discuss in the rideshare litigation updates above—to weaken cases before trial. If they can get some claims dismissed or reduced, it gives them leverage in settlement negotiations. Uber is desperate for some settlement leverage—the company is playing with a weak hand.
But Uber lawyers cannot stall forever. Uber wants to avoid precedent-setting verdicts that could drive up the settlement value of future claims. If a jury awards a massive verdict in an early trial, every plaintiff in the Uber sexual assault MDL will have expectations that go through the roof. Dragging out litigation will only work so long. We believe trial dates will force a global Uber settlement.
What Types of Uber Sex Abuse Claims Are Your Lawyers Reviewing?
Our lawyers are looking at rideshare-related lawsuits where it can be established that a victim has suffered sexual assault by a rideshare driver, with the incident occurring either during the trip or within a week of the trip.
Critical factors include whether the assault involved:
– Physical touching
– Indecent exposure
– Kidnapping/physical detainment
The claim’s strength is bolstered if the victim maintains contact with the person who ordered the ride or possesses proof of the ride, which helps establish the connection between the assault and the rideshare service.
Contact an Uber Sexual Assault Lawyer Today
Our national mass tort lawyers are currently investigating Uber sexual assault cases for placement in the MDL. If an Uber driver sexually assaulted you, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and participate in any settlement. Contact our sexual assault lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation.