Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

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 an Uber new class action lawsuit (In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation – MDL No. 3084). This new MDL has over 1,400 plaintiffs over 29 states as of November 2024 and is expected to grow to the thousands.

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 cases.

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.

Uber Sex Assault Litigation Updates

December 10, 2024: Uber Motion Denied

Today, a federal court denied a motion by Uber seeking to modify a prior discovery order in the MDL. Uber requested the court set a definitive end date of November 27, 2023, for custodial document production obligations. The company argued that the current order, which requires ongoing production of documents “created through the present and on an ongoing basis,” imposes excessive and disproportionate burdens. Uber claimed this ongoing obligation disregards the proportionality and relevance standards established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

December 2, 2024: MDL Case Count Update

The Uber driver sexual assault MDL added 48 new cases in November, representing a steady 3.4% increase over the previous total, now reaching 1,459 cases. Both with our own cases and the claims were are seeing filed, there are many very serious sexual assault claims being filed of late.

December 1, 2024: New Court Order on Privileged Documents

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.

November 25, 2024: New Illinois Lawsuit

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.

November 18, 2024: Pretrial Discovery Battles

The MDL magistrate judge has been handling a number of discovery issues, particularly concerning documents from before 2013 and after November 27, 2023. Initially, Uber was required to provide details on when it first considered a rideshare business model. Uber argued against providing a specific declaration about this early phase, citing risks of contradicting later-identified facts. Certainly, this is an interesting position to take, right? In any even, Uber agreed to produce documents from key early employees without a set starting date.

The court has ordered Uber to submit documents from these employees that cover the entirety of their time at the company. Additionally, there’s a separate focus on non-custodial documents—those not directly tied to specific Uber employees. The court found that Uber has not sufficiently detailed its early rideshare planning stages, based on a 2012 statement by Travis Kalanick. As a result, Uber must now produce relevant records starting from January 1, 2012, but this could be extended if further relevant documents emerge from this earlier period..

November 15, 2024: Where These Cases Are Coming From

There was a spate of new Uber lawsuits filed in the MDL last week. What is striking is how many of these lawsuits come from California, Georgia, Ohio, New York, and Illinois. Yes, these are big states with heavy rideshare usage. But that does not fully explain the disproportion. One thing is certain: lawyers are very active in advertising in these jurisdictions.

November 12, 2024: Uber Wants Privacy on Documents

Uber has filed a motion seeking to keep certain internal documents confidential,. It claims public release would harm Uber’s competitive standing and privacy interests. The company’s lawyers assert that the documents contain sensitive information about business plans, privileged communications, and legal strategies, which they argue would disadvantage Uber if exposed. Uber does not want to allow documents to be released even with redactions.

The reality is there is a difference between confidential business secrets and things that you find embarrassing.

November 8, 2024: Schedule Gets More Concrete

During a further case management conference on Wednesday, key deadlines were established, including the due date for the tentative bellwether list, which is set for June 1, 2025.

Additionally, the timeline for motions includes a motion to dismiss due by December 2, 2024, with opposition responses due by December 13, 2024, and replies due by December 20, 2024.

It is good to have a schedule. But, unfortunately, this shows the judge believes the first bellwether trial will be in 2026. But, as we discuss in the June 15 update below, there may be a Uber sexual assault trial in state court next summer.

November 5, 2024: Litigation Update

A new Joint Case Management Statement outlines battles ahead in the MDL which now includes over 1,400 Uber sex lawsuits across 29 states. This is the gist it:

Setting a Filing Deadline: Uber is requesting a cut-off date for filing new cases in the MDL to provide a clear scope for the litigation, enabling better management and assessment of discovery needs and future motions. The have been pushing this for quite some time. Plaintiff’s’ lawyers counter that such a cut-off is premature given that discovery is still ongoing and many victims may still need time to file.
Motions to Dismiss and Transfer: Uber seeks to dismiss claims that lack specific details and move cases to venues outside California if incidents occurred elsewhere. Plaintiffs argue that such transfers should wait until more information has been gathered. The court’s previous order hinted at resolving forum issues after core pre-trial proceedings.
Discovery Updates: Uber and plaintiffs are coordinating extensive discovery, especially document production and interrogatories. There is a focus on resolving privilege claims and sharing deposition schedules with related state cases to avoid duplicated efforts.
Bellwether Trials: Plaintiffs propose setting initial trial dates and choosing representative cases for trial to drive resolution. Uber argues that it is too early. This is the natural course of things—plaintiffs want to get a trial date because that gets us closer to settlement. Defendants want to push off a trial as long as possible.
Special Settlement Master: Both sides are open to having a Special Settlement Master appointed to oversee settlement discussions for potential case resolution. They have proposed two potential candidates and await the judge’s input.

November 1, 2024: MDL Case Totals

The Uber driver sex assault MDL added 65 new cases in the month of October. That is slightly down from the 83 new cases we saw in September. There are now 1,411 total cases pending in the MDL.

We do not get the case counts in California state court, but there is a comparable number pending there as well. As we discuss below, it is not just California residents filing in state court there. Plaintiffs have jurisdiction in state court because Uber is a California resident. Uber sex abuse lawyers have not formed a consensus as to the best place to bring a lawsuit so we are continuing to see them filed in both venues.

October 30, 2024: Uber and Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Both Want Documents from Lyft

In this recent order, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros addressed disputes related to a subpoena issued by plaintiffs to Lyft in the context of the Uber passenger sexual assault litigation. Plaintiffs requested Lyft to disclose the names and details of its custodians—the employees responsible for communicating with Uber on the Industry Sharing Safety Program (ISSP)—to ensure these individuals are closely involved with the ISSP, rather than tangentially connected.

The Court has ordered Lyft to identify these custodians by November 8, 2024, if selected before then, and to meet with plaintiffs if there is disagreement about the appropriateness of the chosen custodians.

Another issue is Uber’s request to review Lyft’s production for privileged documents. Plaintiffs argue that since these communications involve a third party, privilege is effectively waived, making a privilege review unnecessary and potentially burdensome. Lyft, however, insists on conducting a thorough custodian selection process and asserts that it will meet its final production deadline on December 17, 2024. Lyft maintains that Uber may retain some privilege on communications due to a shared interest in safety-related information.

The judge’s order allows Uber to conduct this privilege review on the condition that all unprivileged documents and privilege logs are also produced by December 17.

October 28, 2024: Uber Lobbying

The plaintiffs really want to get a hold of the documents that will shed more light on Uber’s lobbying efforts. Lawyers have argued that Uber’s lobbying efforts were part of a larger strategy to avoid implementing stringent safety requirements, including more thorough driver background checks. These tactics allegedly helped Uber shape favorable regulatory environments, minimizing accountability for passenger safety risks. Documents and witness testimony are being sought to establish a pattern of prioritizing lobbying and PR over meaningful safety reforms.

What we do know is Uber has consistently resisted regulations that would mandate stricter background checks for drivers, such as biometric or fingerprint screenings. Instead, the company has advocated for less stringent standards, arguing that such measures are cost-prohibitive and do not align with the rideshare business model—which apparently calls for profits, profits and more profits. Plaintiffs’ Uber sex abuse attorneys can argue pretty easily that these lobbying efforts reflect a focus on minimizing expenses and regulatory obligations rather than prioritizing passenger safety and protecting women from sexual assault.

October 22, 2024: Contacting Former Uber Employees

Plaintiffs’ attorneys and Uber disagree about contacting former Uber employees as part of the case investigation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that they have not violated any rules by contacting former employees without notifying Uber and have even offered to avoid contacting former in-house counsel or individuals represented by Uber’s legal team.

Uber says these communications could somehow violate attorney-client privilege or nondisclosure agreements, especially since some former employees are represented by Uber, and others may soon be as well. Uber has proposed a stipulation to require pre-clearance before contacting former employees, ensuring that such communication follows legal rules and giving Uber notice.

Uber is on the wrong side of this. Lawyers are free to contact former employees of a defendant, as they are no longer under the direct control of the company, and attorney-client privilege clearly does not typically extend to all former employees.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct allow attorneys to contact unrepresented former employees without the need for approval from the defendant’s counsel, as long as the communication does not interfere with privileged matters or nondisclosure agreements. Uber is not providing a list of employees who may have been involved in privileged communications or subject to representation because it realizes how narrow that would be.

October 18, 2024: Privileged Documents

The lawyers have an ongoing disagreement over deadlines related to privilege log disputes and document production. A privilege log is a detailed list of documents a party claims are protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, meaning they are exempt from disclosure during litigation.

Plaintiffs argued that Uber’s privilege logs, containing thousands of entries, are overly broad and improperly designate business communications as privileged. The concern—because every plaintiffs lawyers has repeatedly seen this in their careers—is that Uber has tried to shield what would other be non-privileged documents by merely copying a lawyer on them. Then they claim privilege where none should exist.

To address this, Plaintiffs proposed a revised deposition schedule, allowing more time to challenge these designations and ensure documents are correctly de-designated before depositions. Uber, however, argued that most of its designations are proper, requiring minimal changes, and depositions should proceed without delay. The parties remain at odds, with Plaintiffs pushing for more flexibility in the timeline and Uber prioritizing coordinated depositions with the California state court litigation.

October 15, 2024 – Internal Documents Reveal Uber’s “Safety Assurance” Strategies

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 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.

October 16, 2024 – New New Jersey Uber Sexual Assault Suit

A new lawsuit filed by a New Jersey plaintiff alleges that they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers during rides arranged via the Uber platform in January and July of 2023. The complaint, filed under a short-form format allowed by case management procedures in the MDL, seeks compensatory, punitive damages, and a jury trial.

October 12, 2024: Deadlines

Uber has requested an extension for deadlines related to document production in the ongoing passenger sexual assault litigation, citing the need for coordinated depositions across multiple cases.

Uber seeks to delay certain deadlines initially set by Judge Breyer to allow more time for producing custodial files and privilege logs. The company argues that these adjustments are necessary to avoid redundant depositions and better coordinate efforts between the MDL and related cases in California state courts.

The plaintiffs, have concerns. They argue that while they are not reflexively oppositional to an extension, it must come with firm assurances that all relevant documents, including de-designated ones, will be available well in advance of depositions. The fear plaintiffs’ attorneys have is there will not be enough time to prepare or resolve privilege disputes. This would lead to potential re-depositions and wasted resources…which would mean more delay getting to trial that would take us that much further away from a global Uber sex abuse settlement.

October 9, 2024 – “Privileged” Documents

The court addressed a dispute involving Uber’s attempt to reclaim documents it claimed were inadvertently produced and subject to privilege. Uber sought to “claw back” three documents and their attachments, arguing they were protected under attorney-client privilege as part of legal advice provided by in-house counsel.

Plaintiffs challenged Uber’s privilege claims on two initial emails and a “Safety Criteria Update Comms Plan” document, arguing that these communications were created before any legal counsel involvement and were not privileged at the time of creation. These big companies are always claiming privilege without a strong foundation for it.

After reviewing the submissions and holding a hearing, the court concluded that the privilege claim for the “Safety Criteria Update Comms Plan” was not valid, as the document was created for policy decisions, not for legal advice, and the subsequent involvement of lawyers did not retroactively render it privileged. The court denied Uber’s request to claw back this document but ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the attachments to the two initial emails and to resolve any further disputes by October 16, 2024.

October 6, 2024 – Getting Uber’s Lobbying Records

Plaintiffs’ counsel is actively seeking to obtain records from Ballard Partners to support their claims in the Uber sexual assault litigation. Plaintiffs argue that Ballard’s lobbying activities on behalf of Uber are highly relevant to key issues in the case, such as Uber’s control over its drivers, its classification as a technology platform rather than a transportation company, and its efforts to avoid stringent background check requirements.

The records would potentially demonstrate how Uber influenced legislation to set standards favorable to its business model while knowingly downplaying the safety risks to passengers. Plaintiffs also aim to show that Uber was aware of the dangers its platform posed to riders and used lobbying to create a perception of safety that did not align with reality.

The records are relevant. Plaintiffs should be given the evidence to explore our thesis that Uber’s lobbying efforts danced around passenger safety, leveraging millions of dollars of influence to craft regulations that served its own interests while leaving riders exposed to the very risks the company claimed to mitigate.

October 5, 2024 – Status Conference

A discovery status conference was held this week before Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. The conference focused on several key disputes concerning Uber’s privilege logs, document production, and the handling of hyperlinked files. Uber’s counsel indicated plans to implement a validation process for technology-assisted document review after the production of documents from 20 custodians, as outlined in the ESI Order. A notable point of contention was the plaintiffs’ request for Uber to audit its production to ensure that hyperlinked document families were correctly produced and that metadata was provided, which remains unresolved pending further discussions.

Another significant issue involved plaintiffs’ request for personnel files of certain Uber employees. Judge Cisneros ruled that Uber need not produce background checks, performance evaluations, or compensation details unless plaintiffs demonstrate a particularized need for such information. The court also addressed a subpoena served by plaintiffs on their own lawyers who has confidential information he cannot disclose without a court order.

The parties indicated their intent to file a stipulation to extend discovery deadlines as they continue to meet and confer. Judge Cisneros encouraged both sides to resolve as many disputes as possible outside of court but remained open to adjudicating specific issues if necessary.

September 30, 2024 – Win in California State Court

A state court judge in California denied Uber’s motion to dismiss several passenger assault claims, reinforcing that Uber could be held liable for its drivers’ misconduct, as the company was aware of the potential dangers posed by certain drivers but failed to act on the knowledge. This ruling may set a precedent for more cases in state courts, especially as California holds a substantial number of lawsuits outside of the MDL.

September 18, 2024 – Front Facing Cameras

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.

August 31, 2024 – New Appellate Opinion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Uber was responsible for using reasonable care in matching riders with drivers, establishing a “special relationship” that imposes a duty of care under Washington state law.

This decision came in response to a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of an Uber driver who was murdered during an attempted carjacking. The court’s ruling revived the lawsuit after it had been dismissed by a federal district judge, who had originally concluded that Uber did not have a duty to protect the driver and that the murder was not foreseeable.

The Ninth Circuit panel disagreed, stating that Uber’s control over driver-rider matching and its representations of driver safety created a duty of care, and that violent assaults and carjackings were reasonably foreseeable given Uber’s knowledge of prior incidents.

For some reason, the 9th Circuit has decided this is an unreported opinion which means it technically is not precedent. But you can bet that Judge Breyer, the MDL judge, knows of this opinion. The ruling underscores that Uber has a duty of care towards its drivers and passengers due to the control it exercises over the matching process and the information it provides.

In the context of sex abuse lawsuits, this duty of care means that Uber is legally obligated to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers by implementing more stringent background checks, monitoring, and safety measures.

August 28, 2024 – Status Conference

The joint status conference statement for tomorrow encompasses several critical areas:

Case Filings: Over 1,000 MDL cases are pending and 1,650 in state court in California.
Motions: Recent judicial actions include the Ninth Circuit’s permission for Uber to appeal a denial order regarding their Terms of Use, with upcoming arguments set for October. We flush this issue out in the June 26 update below.
Proposals Post-Motions to Dismiss: Discussions focus on amending complaints particularly for claims identified by the court as needing individual allegations like fraud and products liability. Uber lawyers and the plaintiffs’ attorneys differ on the scope and timing of these amendments.
Settlement and Case Management: Includes the selection of a Special Settlement Master and scheduling the next case management conference.

The parties express differing strategies for managing the MDL, particularly on how to handle the amendments and subsequent motions to dismiss.

The plaintiffs propose a selective re-pleading strategy to address the deficiencies identified by the court, while Uber favors a broader approach, aiming for a comprehensive resolution across all claims in the MDL.

August 16, 2024 – Motion to Dismiss Counts in California and Texas

Uber successfully convinced the MDL judge to at least temporarily reduce the scope of a master complaint involving hundreds of lawsuits alleging sexual assaults by its drivers.

The judge dismissed product liability claims under California and Texas law. The court’s problem with these claims is that plaintiffs are claiming that certain issues, like Uber’s failure to perform thorough background checks on drivers or provide immediate help during unsafe rides, are design flaws in the Uber app.

However, the judge sees this as more about how Uber runs its business and manages its services, rather than problems with the app’s design itself. Thus, the court is saying that failing to provide safe services does not necessarily mean the app itself is defective. The distinction is crucial legally, as it affects how Uber might be held accountable for any harm to its passengers. The argument suggests that these are issues of negligence in service provision, not about placing a defective product into the market.

The court also noted that the master complaint in the MDL fails to “explain how the absence of a given feature” on the app caused any particular sexual assault.

Let’s put this in some context. First, the motion to dismiss was based on California and Texas law, so its findings may not directly apply to other states. More importantly, plaintiffs only need one viable cause of action to go to a jury, which Judge Breyer has allowed us to proceed with. So a lot of this is lawyer inside baseball that does not have a lot of real world impact on these cases.

The plaintiffs can amend the master complaint to try to address what the judge sees as defects in their arguments. The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for August 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. During this meeting, the Court and all parties involved will review and discuss the schedule and procedures for submitting and contesting any amended legal documents. Lawyers will also submit a joint status statement on the status of the litigation before August 27.

We will see how this plays out and whether the complaint can be reframed in a way that Judge Breyer can accept. If not, the MDL would still be a viable venue for these sex abuse lawsuits. Would it lead to more claims being filed in state court as opposed to the federal MDL? Maybe, and that would not be the worst thing.

July 25, 2024: New Lawsuit by Victim in Dallas

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 off 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.

July 19, 2024: Uber Has 21 Categories of Sexual Misconduct by Drivers

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.

July 17, 2024: Tentative Deadline Set For Uber to Produce Important Documents

The magistrate judge issued in anticipation of the status conference tomorrow.

The court has set a tentative deadline of July 31, 2024, for Uber to produce data and related documents concerning sexual assault and misconduct incidents, in compliance with previous court orders. The court also raised concerns about potential redactions in incident reports, emphasizing that redactions for relevance are highly disfavored in the Northern District of California to ensure transparency in document production.

Additionally, the order calls for discussion on resolving any remaining disputes over third-party subpoenas, particularly concerning the court’s authority over nonparty requests for relief where compliance is required outside the district. The court seeks an update on ongoing negotiations between the parties regarding search terms and whether any disputes over these terms need court intervention.

Furthermore, the court says the MDL and JCCP (the California state court litigation) plaintiffs are working together to identify 46 out of 55 custodians. The court expects an update on whether the plaintiffs have provided the required list of custodians by the stipulated dates. It anticipates preliminary discussions on the identity of these custodians and potential disputes.

July 11, 2024: Court Grants Access To Data Concerning Safety Incidents

In an extremely important ruling yesterday, the court granted the plaintiffs access to specific documents and data about safety incidents, including GPS data and trip details. This information is crucial for identifying patterns of sexual assault and misconduct, what Uber knew about these incidents, and how the company responded.

It was not a complete victory. Uber sex abuse lawyers asked for access to all 800,000 user reports reviewed by Uber during the preparation of its safety reports. The court deemed this request overly broad, noting that many of these reports were unrelated to sexual misconduct or safety issues. Instead, the court directed Uber to produce documents and data specifically related to sexual assault and misconduct incidents. You want to see everything, but this will be good enough.

July 3, 2024: New Lawsuit From Illinois Woman

An Illinois woman filed a new lawsuit last week. Like all of these short-form complaints, few details are alleged. This woman claims she was sexually assaulted, harassed, battered, or otherwise attacked by an Uber driver in connection with a ride in Madison County, Illinois, on August 14, 2022.

June 26, 2024: Uber Argues “Non-Consolidation Clause” Should Prevent Coordinated Proceedings

In the Uber sex abuse MDL, the rule on the Uber Terms of Use Agreement, which included a “Non-Consolidation Clause” that Uber argued should prevent many plaintiffs from participating in this coordinated or consolidated proceedings. On February 9, 2024, Uber requested that the court dismiss or transfer the cases of plaintiffs who had agreed to this clause.

Uber sought, as we discuss in our June 21st update below, to certify an interlocutory appeal of the order. That involves putting the case on pause while the appellate court rules. The court granted Uber’s motion partially, allowing the interlocutory appeal because the question of whether the “Non-Consolidation Clause” should be enforced by an MDL transferee court is a significant legal issue without clear statutory guidance or precedent, and resolving it could substantially affect the litigation’s outcome.

Thankfully, the appeal will be just “sort of” interlocutory. The court denied Uber’s request to stay the MDL proceedings pending the appeal, maintaining the ongoing process without interruption. So Uber can have its appeal, but we are not slowing down the path to trial in this litigation.

June 23, 2024: Uber Requests Cutoff Date For New Filings

Uber has previously requested the court establish a cutoff date for filing new sexual assault complaints in their MDL, arguing that such a deadline is necessary for manageability and finality. Uber cites the court’s previous indication that a cutoff might be appropriate.

There may come a day when this makes sense, which is why victims who have a claim need to bring it now. But that day is not today, and it is not anytime soon. A new lawsuit cutoff now is premature and contrary to the MDL’s purpose of efficiently resolving many cases with common facts.

June 22, 2024: Special Settlement Master Candidates

Uber sex abuse lawyers have jointly submitted two retired judges as candidates for Special Settlement Master: Hon. Gail Andler and Hon. Shelley Chapman. Agreement on a short list of mediators for a global Uber settlement is a good sign for future progress. Our attorneys continue to think Uber wants to settle these sex assault lawsuits long before they are ever heard by a jury.

June 21, 2024: Uber Attempts Interlocutory Appeal

Uber wants an interlocutory appeal on its argument that a non-consolidation clause in its Terms of Use should effectively dissolve the MDL.

The trial court ruled that Uber’s non-consolidation clause is unenforceable because such clauses cannot override the judicial coordination mandated by the MDL process. The court found that enforcing the clause would not materially affect the substantive issues in dispute and would disrupt the ongoing proceedings.

An interlocutory appeal is a legal procedure allowing a party to appeal a trial court’s ruling on a non-final order before the case is fully resolved.

We should win this. Uber’s request for an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the litigation. Instead, it would likely delay proceedings, disrupt ongoing discovery, and hamper coordination with the California state court cases. It seems unlikely the court will let Uber stall this litigation.

We should have the court’s ruling in the next few weeks.

June 15, 2024: First Uber Sex Abuse Trial To Take Place Next Summer

The first Uber sex abuse trial will likely be in California state court next summer. The judge who will be trying the case has blocked off the entire summer for a trial.

June 14, 2024: 319 Current MDL Lawsuits

As of today, 319 Uber sexual assault lawsuits have been filed in the MDL. That number will soon drop to 235 due to a stipulation to dismiss without prejudice 84 MDL plaintiffs who have cases pending in California state court.

The most recent claim filed last week in the MDL involves a woman who called an Uber in York, Pennsylvania in January 2024. Near the end of the journey, the Uber driver began making inappropriate comments, expressing a desire to pull down Plaintiff’s pants and engage in sexual activity. The driver then unbuckled his seatbelt, reached back to grab Plaintiff’s legs, and exposed his penis. The plaintiff managed to escape by opening the door and running away before further assault occurred.

Living in fear because the Uber driver knew her home address, the plaintiff eventually decided to move to another state. This traumatic event has significantly impacted Plaintiff, exacerbating previous trauma related to past sexual abuse.

May 30, 2024: California Woman Files Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit

In a new Uber sexual assault lawsuit filed in state court in California, the plaintiff alleges that she was sexually assaulted by her Uber driver during a ride to a medical appointment.

The plaintiff, who ordered an Uber to take her to various locations, was picked up and driven to a medical facility in San Diego. Upon arrival at her destination, the driver allegedly entered the back seat of the vehicle, where he proceeded to touch her breasts and caress her thigh in a sexual manner. The plaintiff asserts that this physical contact was non-consensual, and that the driver fled the scene after the assault.

The lawsuit claims that the assault has had a profound and debilitating impact on the plaintiff, causing ongoing pain, suffering, and trauma, and severely affecting her relationships with family and friends. The suit also highlights that this incident is part of a troubling pattern, noting that many other victims have similarly been assaulted and traumatized after using Uber services. The plaintiff seeks to hold Uber accountable for the assault and its devastating impact on her life.

May 22, 2024: Terms Of Use Clause Ruled Unenforceable

Uber’s attempt to use the language in its app’s terms of use to prevent the consolidation of hundreds of sexual assault lawsuits is not going to fly. On Monday, Judge Breyer ruled that the clause in Uber’s terms of use, which prohibits passengers from participating in coordinated or consolidated legal actions against the company, is unenforceable.

If the judge had ruled otherwise, the Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit would have ended. The judge said that while the letter of the clause would end the MDL, enforcing this clause would undermine the judiciary’s ability to manage ongoing litigation and interfere with the public interests that Congress intended to protect through the creation of consolidated litigation. He ruled that “forum-selection clauses cannot ultimately affect the inclusion of the subject cases” in an MDL.

Uber’s attempt to dismiss or transfer these suits based on a forum selection clause in its terms of use has also been firmly rejected. The clause requires legal actions to be filed in the district where the alleged assault occurred. Enforcing a forum-selection cause, the judge ruled, would interfere with the “public interests that Congress sought to advance when it enacted the MDL statute.”

May 3, 2024: Boston Woman Files New Uber Lawsuit

A new Uber driver sexual assault lawsuit was filed recently in Massachusetts. The plaintiff was a Boston woman who claimed that her Uber driver took her home and then forcibly raped her in the car outside of her house. This case will likely be removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and then transferred into the MDL.

April 12, 2024: Uber Introduces New Safety Features

Uber has introduced several new safety features aimed at enhancing passenger protection, particularly for young female passengers. These initiatives were outlined in a press release on April 10. The updates include a RideCheck feature, which monitors the ride for any deviations or unexpected stops, alerting passengers to check if everything is proceeding correctly. Additionally, a PIN verification system has been implemented, providing passengers with a four-digit code to confirm the identity of their driver, ensuring it matches the one booked through the app.

Uber has also incorporated an audio recording feature, allowing passengers to record their trips. These recordings are stored in encrypted files, accessible to Uber only if the passenger files a safety report. Another significant addition is the Share My Trip option, which enables passengers to share their real-time location and trip details with friends or family members.

So this is all good stuff. At least Uber is now trying. But it is hard not to assume that the Uber sexual assault lawsuits fueled these safety concerns after years of inadequate safety measures that put passengers at risk. And if you are a victim of an Uber sexual assault, it is easy to see this as too little, too late.

March 22, 2024: Judge Puts Out Order Managing Fact Sheets

The MDL judge put out an order managing plaintiff and defendant fact sheets in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation. It specifies the form, timeline, and method of service for these fact sheets in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Uber Technologies and associated entities, covering all actions transferred to or directly filed in this MDL.

The order sets deadlines for submitting these fact sheets, establishes rules for their completeness and service, and outlines procedures for handling confidential information and objections. Additionally, it provides for the production of ride receipts and sets rules for authorizations needed for releasing records, aiming to ensure a fair and efficient discovery process. This framework is designed to help manage the litigation, identify common issues, and facilitate the selection of bellwether cases, with an open door for stipulated revisions to the order or fact sheets by March 25, 2024.

February 27, 2024: Judge Rejects Lyft’s Attempt To Dismiss Lawsuit

A Connecticut federal judge rejected a Lyft effort dismiss a lawsuit identified as 14-year-old, identified as Jane Doe, being driven out of state by one of its drivers, leading to her sexual abuse. The judge allowed Doe’s family to amend their complaint, challenging Lyft’s motion to dismiss on several grounds.

The suit accuses Lyft and the Lyft driver of negligence for not verifying Doe’s age, which resulted in her being transported to New York and abused. Worse still, this child was wearing pajamas, a hoodie and carrying a bookbag but failed to make any reasonable inquiry of the minor plaintiff to determine her age… and he just takes her wherever she wants to go across state lines? Insane. This is a strong case.

The court’s decision to let the family amend their complaint includes adding claims for vicarious liability and reinforcing allegations of negligent infliction of emotional distress, while dropping a claim for negligent supervision among others. The judge found the amendment timely and not futile, particularly noting that the driver should have recognized Doe as a minor, given her appearance with pajama pants and a backpack, dismissing Lyft’s counterargument.

Furthermore, the judge also rejected Lyft’s claim that the driver was not acting within his employment scope, highlighting that Lyft’s own policies on not allowing minors to ride alone suggest the company foresaw potential harm from such situations. The judge further rejected Lyft’s stance on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim and decided to wait on a relevant state supreme court decision regarding the familial consortium claim, indicating the legal landscape might soon clarify this issue.

February 17, 2024: Uber Accused Of Knowing About Sexual Assaults For Years

The master complaint in the MDL filed on Friday accuses Uber of knowing for nearly a decade that its drivers were sexually assaulting passengers without implementing effective policies to prevent such crimes.

What is a master complaint in an MDL? A master complaint serves as a consolidated document that outlines the common allegations and legal claims brought forth by the plaintiffs. The master complaint integrates the collective grievances and demands for relief from the individual lawsuits within the MDL, providing a unified legal basis for the litigation. This approach helps us drill down on what the core issues really are.

The master complaint argues that despite being aware since 2014 of the assaults, Uber allegedly prioritized rapid expansion and profits over passenger safety, neglecting to adopt stricter safety measures like biometric checks, in-car cameras, or enhanced background screenings. The complaint criticizes Uber’s superficial safety efforts and accuses it of allowing drivers with histories of sexual misconduct to continue operating, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

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 gets 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 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 supposed to be used to help both sides negotiate some type of settlement, with the test trials giving them some idea of what to expect if the rest of the cases went 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 there is not an Uber sexual assault settlement that 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 expect the documents revealed during the pretrial discovery process will be damning. They will highlight the extent of the issue of sexual assault from drivers to riders. The cases, which include allegations ranging from groping to kidnapping to rape.

The specific grouping of cases in this sexual assault class action lawsuit involves incidents where passengers were the victims of alleged sexual assault by Uber drivers. The good thing is that a class action lawsuit will make a global Uber sexual assault settlement easier to put together.

The specific grouping of cases in this MDL involves incidents where passengers were the victims of alleged sexual assault by Uber drivers. The victims claim that Uber has the capacity to make rides safer but has been slow and inadequate in its response. They criticize Uber for substandard background checks and failing to remove drivers after allegations of sexual assault. They suggest that the platform could be made safer with measures like fingerprint background checks and dashcam recordings of every ride—some of which they are now doing.

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 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 can the defendant 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 strength of evidence and 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.

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 an 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 the 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.
$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 defendant 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 these lawsuit will continue to push the argument that Uber’s game plan was prioritizing cost and image over implementing robust safety protocols demonstrates 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.

What Types of Uber Sex Abuse Claims Are Your Lawyers Reviewing?

Our lawyers are looking at rideshare-related lawsuits where it can be established when the 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, or 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.