Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit [2026 Update] | Legal Action for Uber Sexual Assault Victims

A federal judge overseeing thousands of sexual assault lawsuits against Uber told the company Tuesday that its litigation strategy needs to change. 

At a hearing in San Francisco, the judge expressed open frustration with how long the MDL, which includes roughly 5,000 cases, has dragged on. 

He told Uber’s attorneys the company’s approach of settling small batches of cases while delaying broader resolution isn’t working and that Uber needs a real change in attitude.

The comments come after two bellwether trials produced sharply different outcomes: an $8.5 million verdict in Arizona in February and a $5,000 verdict in North Carolina in a second trial. 

The judge has said neither result gave the litigation the clear settlement guidance the bellwether process is meant to produce. 

A third trial is scheduled to begin later this month in Texas, as the judge continues pushing both sides toward a more comprehensive resolution rather than continued piecemeal settlements.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 191 cases between August and September, increasing from 4,397 to 4,588.

The continued growth comes as the litigation moves forward following two bellwether trials, with Uber challenging the second bellwether verdict on appeal while additional sexual assault claims enter the federal proceedings.

With more than 4,500 cases now pending, the outcomes of the early bellwether cases and Uber’s appeal could play an important role in future trials and potential settlement discussions.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

A woman has filed suit against Uber, alleging she was raped by one of its drivers.

She brings a strict liability claim, arguing Uber has long known of widespread sexual assaults by drivers on its platform.

She alleges the company has failed to take any meaningful steps to address the pattern.

The suit seeks to hold Uber directly accountable for what she calls the company’s indifference to passenger safety.

The case adds to the growing number of sexual assault lawsuits filed against Uber, which now includes more than 3,000 pending claims nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer declined to intervene in a dispute between Uber and plaintiffs’ counsel over an August 4 New York Times article about the Uber sexual assault litigation. 

Uber accused plaintiffs’ lawyers of helping promote the article and suggested confidential information had been leaked to the newspaper. 

The company also reported that its lawyers have received death threats following the article. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel condemned the threats but rejected Uber’s accusations that they caused or encouraged them. 

Judge Breyer said court involvement could turn the issue into a “sideshow” and interfere with resolving the litigation.

During the same hearing, Judge Breyer denied Uber’s motion to strike a punitive damages claim ahead of the October 5 third bellwether trial in Texas. 

Uber argued that Texas law bars punitive damages based on another person’s criminal act. 

Judge Breyer said the issue would be better addressed later through a summary judgment motion and questioned whether the restriction would apply if Uber were found to have acted with gross negligence. 

The ruling leaves the punitive damages claim in place for now as the third bellwether case moves toward trial.

A New York Times investigation reveals a consistent pattern in how Uber’s legal team defends against the more than 4,000 sexual assault lawsuits filed against the company, using discovery to dig into plaintiffs’ childhood abuse, past sexual assaults, mental health records, and personal choices on the night of the incident.

In one deposition, Uber’s attorney asked a plaintiff, whose driver had already pleaded guilty to raping her and was serving a 10-year prison sentence, detailed questions about her alcohol and medication use, what she wore, and whether she had felt abandoned by her father or degraded by her mother.

The plaintiff’s own attorney ended the deposition after Uber’s lawyer pressed into her sexual history and whether she’d previously exchanged sex for money.

The investigation found Uber routinely seeks plaintiffs’ gynecological records, therapy notes, psychiatric intake forms, and social media communications, and has deposed plaintiffs’ parents, spouses, exes, and therapists.

In one case, discovery revealed a plaintiff’s estranged father learned for the first time that she had been sexually abused as a child and had an abortion.

Uber has also compelled at least one plaintiff to undergo a psychiatric examination tied to other assaults she had separately reported.

The report examined the three sexual assault cases against Uber that have gone to trial so far.

Uber won the first, in California, after emphasizing the plaintiff’s history of childhood trauma and suicide attempts.

It lost the next two: an Arizona jury awarded one plaintiff $8.5 million (out of $144 million sought) after Uber argued the encounter was consensual despite video showing her heavily intoxicated, and a North Carolina jury sided against Uber after the company argued a driver’s alleged inappropriate touching was minor and occurred “during the height of” the plaintiff’s drug addiction.

All three verdicts are being appealed.

According to the report, Uber ended forced arbitration for individual sexual assault claims in 2018 following public pressure during the #MeToo movement, initially settling most claims before trial.

But sources described internal shifts as litigation costs mounted alongside pandemic-era revenue declines, leading the company to begin fighting cases more aggressively rather than settling.

Uber has said questioning about past trauma is standard practice necessary to evaluate damages claims, and that its attorneys treat survivors with respect throughout.

The company recently agreed to settle hundreds of pending suits but continues contesting others, including a Texas case set for trial in October involving a driver already convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison for forcing a plaintiff to perform oral sex while driving.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 457 cases between July and August, increasing from 3,940 to 4,397.

The sharp increase follows continued momentum after Uber appealed the second bellwether verdict in the litigation, arguing the jury’s award should be overturned. The appeal is expected to shape how future bellwether cases are litigated while additional survivors continue filing claims alleging inadequate rider safety measures and driver screening.

Surpassing 4,300 pending cases, the Uber sexual assault MDL remains one of the fastest-growing mass torts in the federal court system.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Three pension funds have filed a derivative suit against Uber’s CEO and board, alleging executives collected safety-linked bonuses while hiding the true scale of sexual assault on the platform.

The Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund, Boynton Beach General Employees’ Pension Plan, and Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund filed suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and other directors as defendants.

The complaint alleges more than 400,000 assault incidents occurred between 2017 and 2022.

Plaintiffs claim Uber built a tool in 2017 that could predict assaults with 51% certainty using 43 risk factors but didn’t deploy it until 2022 and even then kept dispatching high-risk trips without warning riders.

The suit also alleges false statements in Uber’s 2024–2026 proxy filings about board safety oversight.

Plaintiffs seek a ruling that executives breached their fiduciary duties and repayment of allegedly improper bonuses.

The case follows a similar June derivative suit from a Detroit pension fund, adding to mounting shareholder pressure on Uber’s board over its handling of assault claims.

Uber has asked a federal judge in Texas to strike a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages ahead of the third bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL, which is scheduled to begin on October 5.

The company argues that Texas law generally does not allow punitive damages for injuries caused by the criminal acts of a third party and says that none of the statute’s limited exceptions apply in this case.

The motion centers on claims brought by a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2020.

The driver was later convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

If the court grants Uber’s request, it could limit the damages available at trial and shape how similar Texas claims proceed as the MDL moves through its bellwether process.

A Gwinnett County judge has denied Uber’s request to shield CEO Dara Khosrowshahi from testifying in a lawsuit alleging the company failed to prevent the trafficking of a 14-year-old girl.

The suit, filed in March 2025, claims an Uber driver picked up the girl in the middle of the night without parental consent and drove her more than 30 miles to a house where she was drugged and raped over several days in November 2024.

The court found Khosrowshahi likely has direct knowledge relevant to the case, including Uber’s awareness of human trafficking risks, its policy decisions, its communications with senators about trafficking sixteen months before the assault, and warnings the company received from the FBI.

The ruling adds to a pattern of courts compelling Uber executives to testify directly in trafficking and sexual assault cases, rather than allowing the company to rely solely on lower-level employee testimony.

A new shareholder lawsuit is placing Uber’s leadership under additional legal scrutiny, alleging the company’s executives and board failed to implement meaningful passenger safety measures despite years of reports involving driver sexual assaults.

Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed by assault survivors, this case focuses on whether Uber’s leadership breached its fiduciary duties by exposing the company to significant legal and financial risk.

According to the complaint, Uber executives prioritized business considerations over passenger safety by failing to adopt measures such as in-vehicle cameras, enhanced driver screening, and other protections that plaintiffs argue could have reduced the risk of sexual assaults.

The lawsuit also alleges Uber understated the scope of the problem by publicly reporting only its most serious sexual assault incidents while internally tracking a much larger number of sexual misconduct reports between 2017 and 2022.

The shareholder action comes as the broader Uber sexual assault litigation continues to grow.

More than 3,500 federal lawsuits are currently pending in the Northern District of California, where bellwether trials are underway to help both sides evaluate evidence and potential settlement values.

Although this new lawsuit does not seek compensation for individual survivors, it underscores the increasing legal pressure Uber faces from multiple directions as plaintiffs continue to argue that the company failed to implement reasonable safeguards to better protect passengers.

An Orange County jury has convicted former Uber driver Amir Attia, 51, on two felony counts of sexually assaulting an intoxicated passenger.

Prosecutors said Attia picked up the woman from a Tustin police station in 2018 after her DUI arrest, and she later reported waking up at home with signs that she had been sexually assaulted.

Attia admitted there was a sexual encounter but claimed it was consensual. He is scheduled to be sentenced on August 27 and faces up to 10 years in prison.

The conviction comes as Uber continues to defend more than 3,500 sexual assault lawsuits in the federal MDL, where plaintiffs allege that the company failed to implement safety measures that could have prevented assaults by drivers.

While the California criminal case is separate from the MDL, it adds to the broader pattern of allegations involving Uber drivers that plaintiffs say demonstrates the need for stronger passenger protections.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 369 cases between June and July, increasing from 3,571 to 3,940.

The sharp increase follows continued bellwether litigation, with Uber pursuing an appeal of a recent plaintiff verdict while additional survivors continue filing claims alleging the company failed to implement adequate rider safety measures and driver screening practices.

Approaching 4,000 pending cases, the Uber sexual assault MDL remains one of the fastest-growing mass torts in the federal court system.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber and California trial attorneys have reached a last-minute agreement to withdraw competing ballot initiatives that were headed for the November ballot.

The deal avoids what had been expected to become one of California’s most closely watched legal and political fights.

The deal was announced one day after both measures officially qualified for the ballot.

Under the agreement, Uber will implement additional safety measures for riders and drivers, while trial attorneys agreed to limit certain claims involving lien-based medical treatment for people injured in Uber and Lyft crashes.

Both sides said the agreement must be approved through legislation within the following week.

If lawmakers do not pass the legislation, the competing ballot measures could still move forward.

The agreement temporarily pauses a dispute that could have significantly changed rideshare injury litigation in California.

If the legislation is enacted, both ballot measures will be withdrawn, ending the immediate fight over the competing proposals.

The court overseeing the Uber sexual assault MDL will hold a status conference on June 30 as the parties prepare for the third federal bellwether trial, which is scheduled to begin on September 14.

The conference follows the court’s order requiring a joint update on the case’s trial readiness.

The upcoming bellwether involves allegations that Uber rehired a driver despite an outstanding arrest warrant before he allegedly raped a passenger in 2022.

After the first two federal bellwether trials produced mixed outcomes, the September trial may play a key role in advancing settlement discussions.

Uber’s board of directors is facing a new shareholder derivative lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that company leaders ignored repeated warnings about compliance and safety issues.

Shareholders claim those failures later contributed to thousands of sexual assault and harassment claims involving drivers.

The complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco by shareholders led by a Detroit pension fund, names several current and former executives and directors, including CEO Dara Khosrowshahi.

According to the lawsuit, Uber’s leadership failed to adequately address known risks and oversight concerns despite years of internal and external warnings.

Shareholders argue that those alleged failures exposed the company to significant legal liability and damaged its reputation.

The complaint also points to other recent regulatory and legal actions involving Uber as evidence of broader compliance problems.

The filing comes as Uber continues to face thousands of sexual misconduct claims consolidated in federal litigation.

Court records cited in the shareholder complaint indicate that, as of June 1, more than 3,500 lawsuits alleging driver sexual misconduct were pending in the coordinated proceedings.

Shareholders are seeking to recover damages on the company’s behalf for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and securities law violations by board members and executives.

Uber and California trial attorneys have reached a last-minute agreement to withdraw competing ballot initiatives that were headed for the November ballot.

The deal was announced one day after both measures officially qualified.

Under the agreement, Uber will adopt additional safety measures, while attorneys agreed to limit certain claims involving lien-based medical treatment for people injured in Uber and Lyft crashes.

Both sides say the agreement must be codified through legislation within the next week. If lawmakers do not approve the deal, the ballot measures could move forward.

The agreement temporarily halts a high-profile fight over issues that could have affected rideshare liability claims and attorney fees in California.

Uber’s proposal sought to cap contingency fees in vehicle collision cases, while the attorneys’ measure would have expanded rideshare companies’ potential liability for sexual assault and misconduct claims by treating them as common carriers under state law.

Uber will be required to comply with new safety and reporting requirements under a Colorado law signed on June 2, 2026.

The legislation mandates criminal background checks for drivers every six months and requires rideshare companies to implement safeguards against account sharing, account renting, and fraudulent driver profiles.

The law also permits drivers and passengers to request audio or video recording during rides.

In addition, Uber must submit specified safety and discrimination incident data to Colorado regulators beginning in 2027.

Colorado lawmakers approved the measure after revising a similar bill that was vetoed in 2025.

Supporters of the legislation said the new requirements are intended to address concerns about passenger safety, driver impersonation, and allegations of misconduct on rideshare platforms.

The law applies to Uber and other transportation network companies operating in Colorado.

More than 3,900 sexual assault lawsuits have now been filed against Uber, with the next bellwether trial scheduled to begin jury selection on September 14, 2026.

According to a recent joint case management statement, approximately 3,057 claims are pending in the federal multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California, while another 854 cases remain active in California state court.

The lawsuits generally allege that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures to protect passengers from sexual assault and other misconduct by drivers.

The upcoming bellwether case involves allegations that a California woman was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2022.

Plaintiffs claim the trial will address key issues that could influence future settlement discussions and litigation strategy across the broader docket.

Bellwether trials are commonly used in mass tort proceedings to help both sides evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and legal arguments before additional cases proceed toward trial.

The outcome of the September 2026 trial is expected to be closely watched as the Uber sexual assault litigation continues to expand.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 134 cases between May and June, increasing from 3,437 to 3,571.

The growth comes as Uber continues to challenge a recent bellwether verdict, filing an appeal after a jury awarded damages to a passenger who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.

The appeal could influence future bellwether proceedings, but new lawsuits continue to enter the MDL as plaintiffs pursue claims involving alleged failures in rider safety and driver screening practices.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber has filed an appeal following a North Carolina federal jury verdict that found one of its drivers committed a battery against a passenger during a 2019 ride and held Uber liable under common carrier principles.

After a four-day bellwether trial in Charlotte, the jury concluded the driver sexually assaulted the passenger during the trip, awarding emotional distress damages tied to the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Prior to trial, the court ruled that Uber qualified as a common carrier under North Carolina law, meaning the company could be held responsible for failing to safely transport passengers if a driver committed an assault.

The appeal will likely focus on the trial court’s ruling that Uber owed a non-delegable duty to protect passengers, an issue with broader implications for rideshare assault cases nationwide.

Uber has consistently argued it functions as a technology platform rather than a transportation carrier directly responsible for drivers’ conduct.

Earlier this year, the first bellwether trial for the Uber sexual assault lawsuits in Arizona resulted in an $8.5 million verdict against Uber.

The North Carolina verdict and subsequent appeal are significant because they test whether rideshare companies can be treated as common carriers under state law and therefore face expanded liability for assaults allegedly committed by drivers during rides arranged through the platform.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 46 cases between April and May, increasing from 3,391 to 3,437 cases pending.

Multiple trials have occurred over the past few months involving sexual assault claims filed against the company.

The past three trials have all ended in plaintiff victories, with the highest compensation secured among those being an $8 million victory.

Filings also indicate that some cases in the MDL may have been settled.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

A proposed California ballot measure would make rideshare companies like Uber legally responsible for sexual assaults that occur during rides.

The initiative would classify rideshare companies as common carriers, imposing a heightened duty of care and allowing companies to be held liable for driver misconduct regardless of independent contractor status.

It also includes requirements for fingerprint-based background checks, disclosure of safety risks, and reporting of sexual misconduct incidents.

The proposal comes amid an ongoing legal battle between Uber and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Supporters argue the measure is necessary to close accountability gaps, while Uber maintains it already invests significantly in safety.

A Colorado Uber driver has been arrested and charged with multiple counts of sexual assault after attacking an intoxicated passenger during a ride, with police indicating there may be additional victims.

According to investigators, the driver allegedly entered the back seat with the passenger after arriving at her destination and then drove away with her still inside the vehicle before later dropping her off at another location.

The victim subsequently sought medical care and underwent a forensic exam, and authorities identified the driver through platform records and other evidence.

Police have stated the suspect completed a large number of rides prior to the arrest and are urging other potential victims to come forward, raising concerns about how long the alleged conduct may have gone undetected.

A Redwood City, California woman has filed a lawsuit against Uber alleging she was sexually assaulted by a driver shortly before reaching her home, adding to a growing number of claims against the company involving passenger safety.

The lawsuit centers on the alleged conduct of the driver during the ride and raises claims that Uber failed to protect passengers from foreseeable risks.

Uber sexual assault cases focus on whether the company implemented adequate safety measures, including driver screening, monitoring, and response protocols for misconduct.

This filing aligns with broader multidistrict litigation involving thousands of similar claims, where plaintiffs allege Uber did not take sufficient steps to prevent sexual assault by drivers or to respond appropriately to reports of misconduct.

Sexual assault lawsuits filed against the rideshare company center on whether Uber can be held liable for driver conduct and whether its safety policies and platform design were sufficient to protect riders from harm.

A federal jury in North Carolina returned a verdict in ongoing Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits, finding that an Uber driver committed battery against a passenger during a 2019 ride.

The jury awarded $5,000 in damages after a four-day bellwether trial in federal court in Charlotte. The case is part of a multidistrict litigation involving claims that Uber drivers sexually assaulted or harassed passengers.

The plaintiff alleged that the driver grabbed her upper inner thigh at the end of a ride. The jury evaluated whether the conduct met the legal definition of battery, which requires intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact.

The jury concluded that the driver’s actions met that standard and caused harm. The driver denied the allegations and was not criminally charged.

The case represents the second bellwether trial in the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits.

Bellwether trials are representative cases selected to test legal arguments and evidence before a jury, providing insight into how similar claims may be resolved. In an earlier bellwether trial in Arizona, a jury awarded $8.5 million in damages to a different plaintiff.

The court previously ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier under North Carolina law. Common carrier status imposes a heightened duty of care, requiring companies to take reasonable steps to ensure passenger safety.

A plaintiff testified in a federal bellwether trial that she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a 2019 ride, describing the incident in detail and disputing the company’s position that the assault did not occur.

The testimony focused on the alleged conduct of the driver and the plaintiff’s immediate reaction, as well as her decision not to report the incident to police or Uber at the time.

The defense challenged her credibility, pointing to inconsistencies in prior statements and her history of substance abuse, while the plaintiff maintained her account and stated her motivation was to hold the company accountable.

The case is being tried under a legal framework in which Uber has been classified as a common carrier, meaning the company may be held liable for a driver’s conduct if the jury finds an assault occurred.

This designation places a heightened duty on the company to ensure passenger safety.

The trial centers on core issues in the broader litigation, including whether Uber adequately screened and monitored drivers and whether it can be held responsible for alleged assaults committed during rides arranged through its platform.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits returned to federal court in North Carolina as a second bellwether trial began following an $8.5 million jury verdict in a prior case in Arizona.

Uber Technologies Inc. faces more than 3,300 consolidated sexual assault lawsuits in federal court, centered on allegations involving Uber drivers and passenger safety during rides arranged through the app.

The current trial is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is expected to continue for approximately three weeks.

The plaintiff in the North Carolina case alleges a sexual assault occurred after an Uber ride ended in Raleigh in March 2019.

Court filings state the Uber driver grabbed the plaintiff’s inner thigh and made suggestive comments immediately after arrival at the destination, prompting the plaintiff to exit the vehicle.

Uber has not disputed the alleged incident in court filings but disputes liability. Uber asserts legal arguments centered on classification as a technology platform rather than a transportation provider.

The company argues drivers operate as independent contractors rather than employees. Uber also disputes classification as a common carrier under North Carolina law, a designation that could impose heightened duties to protect passengers.

The federal judge overseeing the litigation, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presided over the prior bellwether trial in which an Arizona jury found Uber responsible for a driver’s conduct and awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits remain active in both federal multidistrict litigation and more than 500 related cases in California state court.

Uber is asking a federal court to allow evidence that a North Carolina plaintiff saw attorney advertisements before filing her lawsuit, arguing it is relevant to her credibility and the timing of her claims in the upcoming bellwether trial.

The company points to a three-year delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the lawsuit, along with the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that she completed an online survey that led to contact from attorneys.

Uber contends this sequence raises questions about the motivation behind the claim and whether it was prompted by attorney outreach.

The evidentiary issue focuses on whether exposure to legal advertising can be used to assess a plaintiff’s credibility and decision to pursue litigation.

Uber argues such evidence is probative in cases involving delayed filing, particularly where the lawsuit followed targeted outreach.

The ruling on this issue will shape how the jury evaluates witness credibility in the bellwether trial, which is part of broader litigation alleging Uber failed to adequately screen drivers and respond to safety complaints related to passenger sexual assault claims.

Uber is urging a California federal court to reject a tentative finding that it qualifies as a “common carrier,” a designation that would impose a heightened duty to ensure passenger safety in ongoing sexual assault litigation.

The dispute centers on whether Uber’s role as a platform connecting riders with independent drivers creates legal responsibility for passenger safety comparable to traditional transportation providers.

Uber argues it does not physically transport passengers and instead operates as a technology intermediary, while plaintiffs contend the company controls key aspects of rides, including driver selection, pricing, and safety representations.

The classification is a critical issue in the litigation because common carriers are subject to elevated duties of care.

Plaintiffs allege Uber failed to adequately screen drivers, monitor conduct, and respond to complaints, contributing to incidents of sexual assault.

The court has not yet issued a final ruling, but the decision will directly shape the legal standard applied in upcoming bellwether trials and determine the scope of Uber’s duty to protect passengers.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit recorded an increase in total multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases from March 2026 to April 2026.

The docket rose from 3,291 total cases in March 2026 to 3,391 total cases in April 2026, resulting in a net increase of 100 cases during the month.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims that passengers experienced sexual misconduct or assault during rides arranged through the Uber platform.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is again arguing in ongoing litigation that it functions as a technology platform rather than a transportation provider, seeking to avoid liability for incidents involving drivers who use its app.

The company has maintained in court filings that its drivers are independent contractors and that Uber does not directly provide transportation services.

Instead, it contends that it connects riders and drivers through a digital platform, and therefore should not be held vicariously liable for a driver’s conduct during a ride.

This position is central to multiple cases where plaintiffs attempt to impose liability on Uber for injuries or misconduct occurring during rides.

By characterizing itself as a technology company, Uber aims to limit the duties it owes to passengers and avoid classification as a common carrier, which would impose a heightened standard of care.

Plaintiffs have challenged that argument, asserting that Uber exercises sufficient control over rides, including setting fares, monitoring trips, and implementing safety features, to be treated as a transportation provider.

Courts evaluating these claims have increasingly focused on the degree of control Uber exerts and whether that creates a legal duty to passengers.

The issue remains unsettled and continues to play a significant role in litigation involving ride sharing platforms.

The outcome of these disputes is likely to influence how courts define the responsibilities of app based transportation companies in personal injury and product liability cases.

A North Carolina plaintiff has filed an opposition urging the MDL court to reject Uber’s bid for summary judgment, arguing the company acts as a transportation provider and owes passengers a duty of safety under state law.

In the March 25 filing, the plaintiff argues that Uber cannot dodge liability by branding itself as a technology platform, citing its public-facing role in providing rides and transporting passengers.

She argues that, like a taxi or bus service, Uber presents itself to the public as providing transportation and thus has a nondelegable duty to protect its riders.

The dispute centers on a key issue in the upcoming bellwether trials: whether Uber can limit liability by differentiating itself from traditional common carriers.

The plaintiff also notes that North Carolina law does not explicitly exempt transportation network companies from common carrier obligations, unlike laws in some other states.

The court’s ruling on this matter could influence how liability is assessed in the over 3,100 sexual assault cases consolidated in the MDL.

A March 16 court filing shows Uber has settled some of the sexual assault cases pending in the federal MDL, with funds already deposited into the court’s common benefit fund.

The filing does not specify how many claims Uber resolved or disclose any payout amounts, but it confirms that at least some cases have settled while the broader litigation continues.

Under Judge Charles Breyer’s previous order, 9% of any settlement or judgment is allocated to common benefit funds, including 7% for attorneys’ fees and 2% for costs.

The disclosure comes as lawyers continue preparing for more bellwether trials. Last month, a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, finding Uber liable for the driver’s conduct even though jurors did not hold the company responsible for failing to add additional safety features.

Post-trial motions are currently pending in that case, and Uber is expected to appeal.

Even with some settlements now confirmed, the litigation still heads toward the upcoming trial dates.

A second federal bellwether trial is scheduled to start on April 13, while a California state court trial is set for April 4, 2026.

Those proceedings will likely influence the next stage of settlement discussions, especially if Uber and the plaintiffs’ attorneys remain unable to reach a broader agreement.

Uber Technologies Inc. has declined a federal judge’s proposal to expand the jury size in the upcoming second bellwether trial in the In re: Uber Technologies Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, signaling ongoing disputes over trial structure as the litigation moves forward.

The request came from Charles R. Breyer, who suggested increasing the jury to 12 members to better reflect North Carolina civil trial standards and provide a more representative sample for bellwether purposes.

The proposal would have allowed a verdict based on agreement from nine of the twelve jurors, rather than requiring unanimity.

Uber rejected the proposal, stating it could not agree to a non-unanimous verdict structure.

The second bellwether trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection in April in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Uber is requesting a federal court overseeing the passenger sexual assault MDL to grant summary judgment in a bellwether case, arguing it cannot be held liable for a North Carolina driver’s alleged sexual assault because it is a technology platform, not a transportation provider.

In a motion filed before the April 14 bellwether trial, the company contends it is not a “common carrier” under North Carolina law and therefore does not owe the heightened duty to protect passenger safety that applies to taxi companies.

The plaintiff, identified as WHB 823, contends otherwise.

She states that Uber functions as a common carrier because it markets rides as a service it offers and controls the transportation process, including matching passengers with drivers and establishing safety standards for vehicles.

The case originates from a 2019 incident where the driver allegedly touched her thigh and made a sexualized comment at the end of a trip.

The MDL in the Northern District of California now involves over 3,100 lawsuits from passengers claiming they were sexually assaulted, harassed, or raped by Uber drivers.

Plaintiffs allege the company did not properly screen drivers, investigate complaints, or share safety information that could have prevented assaults.

The court’s ruling on Uber’s motion for summary judgment will influence the arguments leading into the April bellwether trial.

A federal judge overseeing the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits is evaluating a procedural change that could affect the next bellwether trial scheduled for April 2026.

The proposal focuses on expanding the size of the jury to better reflect how similar claims are handled in state courts.

Judge Charles Breyer, who presides over the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), raised the possibility of increasing the jury from six members to twelve for the upcoming trial.

The case involves an anonymous plaintiff who alleges that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her in North Carolina in 2019.

Judge Breyer indicated that a twelve-member jury could provide a clearer picture of how jurors might evaluate the evidence in state courts.

North Carolina courts typically use 12-person juries in civil trials, prompting the court to consider aligning the federal bellwether structure with the state system.

The proposal also included a modified verdict rule.

The court suggested allowing a verdict if at least nine jurors agree, rather than requiring unanimity.

Plaintiffs involved in the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits agreed to the proposed arrangement, stating that the structure could improve the bellwether evaluation process.

Uber Technologies Inc. has asked a California federal court to overturn an $8.5 million jury verdict issued in the first bellwether trial within the ongoing Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The request follows a February verdict that held Uber liable for a Phoenix driver’s alleged sexual assault of a passenger.

Uber filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law with U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer. Uber argues that Arizona law prevents liability for actions committed by drivers who operate as independent contractors through the ride-sharing platform.

The jury determined that Uber did not act negligently in connection with the incident. The jury still concluded that the driver qualified as an “apparent agent” of Uber. Apparent agency is a legal doctrine that allows liability when a third party reasonably believes an individual acts on behalf of a company, even when the company classifies the individual as an independent contractor.

Uber disputes the application of the apparent agency doctrine under Arizona law. Uber cites Arizona’s Qualified Marketplace Statute (QMP), which classifies ride-share drivers as independent contractors for all legal purposes.

Uber argues that the statute eliminates the possibility of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a legal concept that allows a company to be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by individuals acting within the scope of their work.

Uber argues that the statute blocks any claim that a driver acted as an agent of the company during an alleged assault. Uber also claims that the jury received incorrect legal instructions during the trial.

Uber states that the jury instructions focused on whether the driver’s legitimate driving activity occurred within the scope of his authority, rather than whether the alleged sexual encounter occurred within the scope of any authorized activity.

The February verdict marked the first federal bellwether trial in the litigation.

Uber announced Monday that it is expanding its “Women’s Preferences” feature nationwide, enabling female riders and drivers across the United States to request trips with other women through the app.

Riders can select a “Women Drivers” option when booking a trip, schedule rides with female drivers in advance, or set a preference in their account settings to improve the chances of being matched with a woman driver.

Female drivers can also activate a setting that prioritizes ride requests from women riders, while still having the option to turn the preference off at any time.

Uber previously tested the feature in several cities before expanding it more widely, and the company says the nationwide rollout aims to give women more control over who they ride with on the platform.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 103 cases between February and March, increasing from 3,188 to 3,291.

The continued growth reflects ongoing filings alleging sexual assault and inadequate rider safety measures.

Pretrial proceedings remain focused on coordinated discovery and bellwether preparation, with no new JPML transfer orders reported during the month.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. 

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chat feature on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber Technologies, Inc is moving to strengthen its driver background check policies following scrutiny over whether individuals with serious criminal convictions were allowed to operate on the platform.

The changes come after reporting revealed that in some states drivers with certain violent or abuse related convictions older than seven years were not permanently barred from providing rides.

According to the report, Uber is considering ending its seven year lookback policy for a broader range of offenses.

Under the current framework, convictions for murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and terrorism result in permanent disqualification.

However, other serious crimes, including some violent felonies, stalking and child abuse offenses, could fall outside automatic exclusion if they occurred beyond the seven year screening window in certain jurisdictions.

The proposed revisions would permanently bar drivers with convictions for violent felonies, sexual offenses, child or elder abuse and endangerment, regardless of when the offense occurred.

The company is also reviewing its treatment of harassment, restraining order violations and weapons related offenses as part of the updated screening process.

Uber has stated that it conducts criminal and driving history checks before onboarding drivers and performs periodic rechecks.

The company has not publicly detailed when the expanded disqualification standards will take effect or whether they will apply retroactively to current drivers.

The policy shift follows broader scrutiny of rideshare safety practices and reporting transparency.

Litigation involving alleged assaults and passenger safety failures continues in courts across the country, with plaintiffs raising claims related to negligent hiring, inadequate screening and failure to warn.

A California federal judge overseeing the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation has ordered Lyft to produce records relating to four drivers accused of sexually assaulting passengers while driving for Uber. The ruling requires Lyft, a nonparty to the MDL, to comply with subpoenas issued by four plaintiffs scheduled for upcoming bellwether trials.

The court held that the requested materials, including background checks, sexual misconduct reports, and information shared through the Industry Sharing Safety Program, may be relevant to whether Uber knew or should have known about alleged prior misconduct. The judge stated that such evidence could bear on what Uber might have discovered through more thorough screening practices, more robust investigations of rider complaints, or a differently structured data sharing program between rideshare companies.

The court narrowed the scope of production, limiting Lyft’s obligation to documents created before the alleged assaults and specifically tied to sexual misconduct. Lyft was ordered to produce records for one plaintiff within three weeks due to an April trial date, with additional time allowed for the remaining subpoenas.

Lyft argued it should not be required to comply because the plaintiffs renewed their efforts after discovery had closed. The court rejected that position, noting that Lyft previously complied with a similar subpoena request from Uber in connection with the first bellwether trial, even though it was also served late.

A federal judge overseeing the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL) has ordered a plaintiffs’ attorney to pay $30,000 in sanctions after finding he violated a court-issued protective order.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ruled that attorney Bret Stanley improperly disclosed confidential Uber materials that had been produced in the MDL.

A protective order is a court order that limits how sensitive information exchanged during discovery can be used or shared.

In this case, Uber had designated certain internal documents – including a spreadsheet containing hundreds of rows of policy information – as confidential.

The court found that Stanley disclosed 587 rows of Uber’s internal data in other lawsuits without following the required procedure to challenge Uber’s confidentiality designation.

Judge Cisneros called the violation “pretty straightforward” and said there was no reasonable basis to dispute that the protective order applied.

However, the court significantly reduced Uber’s requested sanction. Uber sought more than $168,000 in attorney fees.

The judge awarded $30,000 instead, stating that Uber had not shown significant harm from the disclosure and that the higher amount was excessive.

The court also noted there was no evidence of bad faith, though it expressed concern about counsel’s “lax approach” to compliance.

This ruling comes as the MDL continues to move forward following the first bellwether trial earlier this month.

In that Arizona federal trial, a jury awarded $8.5 million to a plaintiff who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.

While the jury did not find Uber negligent in its overall safety practices, it held the company liable for the driver’s conduct.

The award was substantially lower than the $144 million sought.

Why this matters for the broader litigation:

• The sanctions order reinforces that courts are strictly enforcing discovery rules in the MDL.
• Protective orders will likely remain a major battleground as plaintiffs seek access to Uber’s internal safety policies and communications.
• Bellwether outcomes and discovery disputes together are shaping how aggressively both sides approach settlement discussions and trial strategy.

As the MDL progresses, procedural rulings like this one,  even when not directly about assault allegations, can influence the pace of discovery, access to evidence, and the overall trajectory of the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has set the next federal bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL to start with jury selection on April 13, 2026.

In a February 9 pretrial order, Judge Breyer confirmed that the case would involve a plaintiff known as “WHB 823,” who claims they were sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in North Carolina in March 2019.

The upcoming trial follows very different outcomes in the first two cases that went to juries.

Earlier this month, a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean, finding Uber liable for its driver’s actions based on an agency theory but not responsible for failing to implement more safety measures.

In contrast, a California state court jury last year found Uber negligent but determined that the negligence did not significantly contribute to the assault, resulting in no damages award.

The parties have proposed a pretrial schedule that includes Daubert and summary judgment motions due by March 10, motions in limine by March 13, and a joint pretrial order by March 27, with a final pretrial conference set for early April.

Judge Breyer has not approved that schedule yet.

The April 2026 trial will add another data point as the court reviews over 3,000 pending claims and considers the next steps if no global resolution is achieved.

Federal judges have consolidated a series of sexual assault claims against Lyft into a coordinated litigation track, a procedural development that mirrors the ongoing multidistrict litigation over similar allegations against Uber. This move comes in the wake of a recent $8.5 million verdict entered against Uber in the first bellwether trial involving claims that a rideshare driver sexually assaulted a passenger, although that verdict did not find Uber negligent on rider safety.

By consolidating the Lyft cases, the federal judiciary is formalizing a more unified approach to evaluating common legal and factual issues presented by allegations that drivers for both platforms have preyed on passengers. Plaintiffs in the Lyft track assert, as in other rideshare cases, that the company failed to implement adequate safety measures, screening practices, and warnings to protect riders from foreseeable harm. The coordinated docket will streamline discovery and briefing, helping courts and litigants manage overlapping claims more efficiently and avoid duplicative litigation.

Legal observers note that the apparent agency theory on which the Uber verdict was based — under which the driver was found to be an agent of the company — may also inform liability arguments in the newly consolidated Lyft cases. Although the Uber case did not result in a punitive damages award, the agency finding was seen by plaintiffs’ counsel as a potentially significant legal foothold, since it allowed liability despite the companies’ contractual characterization of drivers as independent contractors.

For defendants like Lyft, consolidation does not mean liability has been established; the litigation remains in early stages and each case will still need to be developed on its facts. Moreover, mixed outcomes in early bellwether trials, including defense wins and varying verdicts, underscore that substantial work remains before any broader resolution or global settlements are likely.

The consolidation effort illustrates that courts are taking seriously the complex issues presented by allegations of sexual assault in the rideshare context, even as defendants continue to contest causation, duty, and the application of agency theories in these cases.

Uber recently received a mixed outcome in the first bellwether trial in the federal multidistrict litigation involving claims of sexual assault by rideshare drivers. An Arizona federal jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiff, but notably found that Uber was not negligent with respect to rider safety, rejecting a core theory advanced across thousands of cases in the MDL.

Although the jury found Uber liable under an apparent agency theory, it declined to award punitive damages, resulting in a verdict far below the more than $144 million sought by the plaintiff. The outcome reflects a significant limitation on plaintiffs’ broader narrative that Uber systematically prioritized profit over safety, as the jury did not conclude Uber breached its duty of reasonable care.

The MDL includes more than 3,100 pending cases alleging that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures and warning systems despite awareness of alleged risks. While plaintiffs have highlighted the apparent agency finding as favorable, legal commentators note that the defense verdict on negligence may carry substantial weight in future proceedings, particularly because negligence is central to many plaintiffs’ liability and punitive damages arguments.

Additionally, prior bellwether litigation in California state court resulted in a defense win on causation, underscoring that outcomes remain highly fact dependent and that the litigation landscape is still developing.

A second bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in April in North Carolina. The mixed result in the first trial may influence both sides’ strategies moving forward, but the MDL remains in early stages and significant litigation activity remains ahead before any broader resolution is reached.

An Arizona federal jury is considering whether Uber should be held liable for more than $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages in a bellwether trial involving allegations that a rideshare driver raped a 19 year old passenger.

The case marks the first federal jury trial to test Uber’s liability for sexual assaults committed by its drivers and is part of a broader multidistrict litigation addressing rider safety.

At closing arguments, counsel for plaintiff Jaylynn Dean urged jurors to award $24 million in compensatory damages for emotional harm and $120.2 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff argues that Uber prioritized growth and profit over rider safety, concealed known risks of sexual assault to vulnerable passengers, and marketed itself as a safe transportation option despite internal data showing heightened risks.

Evidence presented included allegations that Uber failed to warn the plaintiff and dispatched a driver flagged by its internal safety risk system as a poor match for an intoxicated solo female passenger.

Uber denied liability on all claims, including negligence, product defect, and apparent agency.

The company argued that the alleged assault was not foreseeable, that its app was not defectively designed, and that Uber did not cause the harm.

Uber emphasized its safety investments, including background checks, safety education, reporting tools, and more than $1.3 billion spent on safety initiatives.

Uber also maintained that the driver was an independent contractor and that the encounter was claimed by the driver to be consensual.

The presiding judge instructed jurors that Uber could only be found negligent if the harm was foreseeable and if Uber failed to take reasonable precautions.

The jury began deliberations and is expected to continue.

The outcome is being closely watched, as it may influence future proceedings in the rideshare assault multidistrict litigation.

The court also announced that the next bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in April in North Carolina.

A federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to plaintiff Jaylynn Dean after finding the company liable in a lawsuit involving an alleged sexual assault by an Uber driver.

The verdict represents the first bellwether trial among more than 3,000 consolidated federal lawsuits that raise similar allegations against the ride-hailing company.

Bellwether trials serve as test cases in multidistrict litigation. Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a federal procedure that centralizes similar lawsuits before one judge to streamline pretrial proceedings. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who manages the coordinated Uber sexual assault litigation in San Francisco, oversaw the Phoenix trial.

Outcomes in bellwether trials often influence settlement discussions and litigation strategy across the larger pool of claims.

Jaylynn Dean filed the lawsuit in 2023 and alleged that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her after she hired a ride in Arizona. The complaint alleged that Uber knew about a pattern of sexual assault reports involving drivers and failed to implement adequate safety protections for riders.

Uber argued that the company cannot be held responsible for criminal conduct committed by independent contractors using the platform. Defense counsel emphasized that the driver had no criminal history and had completed thousands of prior trips with high rider ratings.

A California jury reached a defense verdict in September in the only completed state trial so far, finding that Uber’s safety measures were negligent but not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

A new lawsuit out of New Mexico is adding to the expanding body of litigation accusing Uber of failing to protect riders from sexual assault. 

The case centers on a teenage girl in state custody who was allegedly sexually assaulted after leaving a group home, with claims that an Uber ride played a role in placing her in harm’s way.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent a vulnerable minor from being transported into a dangerous situation.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s policies and safety systems were insufficient given the foreseeable risks, particularly when transporting minors or individuals in crisis.

The claims echo arguments raised in nationwide Uber multidistrict litigation, which accuse the company of prioritizing growth and convenience over rider safety.

Uber’s chief product officer testified as the final live defense witness in a closely watched bellwether trial over the company’s liability for alleged sexual assaults by drivers, acknowledging gaps in Uber’s safety efforts while disputing claims that the company deliberately delayed protections. The trial is part of a massive multidistrict litigation involving thousands of similar claims nationwide.

The case centers on allegations by an Arizona rider who says she was raped by her Uber driver in 2023. On the stand, Uber’s chief product officer described a shift in company culture after new leadership took over in 2017, emphasizing safety as a stated top priority.

He pointed to features such as ride sharing with trusted contacts, phone number masking, in-app audio recording, and an internal AI-driven tool designed to flag higher-risk rides. He conceded, however, that Uber “has not done enough” and said more work remains.

Plaintiffs’ counsel challenged Uber’s timeline, highlighting internal documents suggesting the company had the data and capacity to roll out certain protections years earlier, including a women rider–women driver matching option, but did not do so until 2025.

Emails shown to the jury suggested Uber discussed launching the feature only after competitors moved in that direction and internally identified certain cities as higher risk for sexual assault.

The defense argued that delays stemmed from practical and legal concerns, including driver supply limitations, privacy issues, and the risk of misuse by bad actors.

Uber also cited challenges with other safety proposals, such as dashboard cameras, which raised technical and privacy concerns.

The jury also heard evidence about the alleged assault itself, including police body camera footage and recorded statements.

The presiding judge has barred Uber from telling jurors that the driver was never criminally charged and rejected Uber’s request to delay the trial.

As the trial heads into closing arguments, Uber has asked the court to end the case early, arguing the evidence does not support liability.

The outcome of this bellwether is expected to influence how thousands of similar claims proceed and could shape future expectations around ride-hailing platform safety obligations.

Testimony continued this week in the Jaylynn Dean bellwether trial, with Uber defending its nonprofit partnerships as evidence of its safety efforts.

Uber public safety executive Emily Bowman told jurors that the company spent more than $5 million over five years through its “Driving Change” initiative, collaborating with groups like Raliance, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, and RAINN to enhance reporting tools, review safety data, and staff a survivor support hotline.

Bowman dismissed suggestions that the partnerships function as public relations, describing the work as “substantive.”

During cross-examination, Dean’s attorneys highlighted evidence indicating that reported rape rates involving Uber drivers stayed mostly the same from 2017 through 2024.

Bowman stated she was unaware of that data.

Lawyers also highlighted internal documents showing Uber targeted women traveling alone or at night and considered the risk of losing ridership if it revealed that assaults increase during nighttime rides.

Bowman acknowledged Uber markets to women but said sexual assault is more likely at night across all industries, not just rideshare.

The testimony also highlighted delayed safety features and driver screening.

Bowman said Uber only recently added a “woman driver preferred” option due to concerns over discrimination claims, which later led to a class action by male drivers.

Uber’s expert witness, Joseph Okpaku, testified that the company exceeds industry safety standards, while Dean argues Uber’s background checks fall short of requirements used in places like New York City.

Uber intends to rest its case on Friday, with closing arguments anticipated next week.

The Uber sexual assault MDL added 110 cases between January and February, increasing from 3,078 to 3,188.

The rise reflects continued plaintiff filings tied to alleged failures in rider safety and background screening.

Court activity remains focused on coordinated discovery and bellwether preparation, with no new JPML action reported.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is set to hold its first hearing of the year on January 29, with two proposed mass torts drawing early attention, including a bid to centralize sexual assault claims against Lyft.

The Lyft cases mirror the allegations currently driving nationwide litigation against Uber, where plaintiffs claim the rideshare company failed to implement adequate safety measures to prevent driver-on-passenger sexual assaults.

Those following the JPML docket say the Lyft matters present a strong candidate for MDL treatment given the similarity of claims, overlapping factual issues, and parallels to the ongoing Uber sex abuse litigation.

If centralized, the Lyft proceedings could further solidify a broader litigation trend scrutinizing rideshare companies’ safety policies, background checks, and responses to assault reports.

In the high-profile sexual assault trial, Uber has denied liability for alleged misconduct by a driver accused of sexually assaulting a passenger after being matched through the company’s rideshare app.

Uber’s defense focuses on the argument that it should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of individual drivers who operate as independent contractors, asserting that liability for such conduct lies with the person who committed the offense rather than the platform that facilitated the ride.

At trial, Uber has underscored its efforts to improve rider safety, including background checks, in-app safety features, and reporting tools, arguing that such measures demonstrate a reasonable approach to mitigating risks tied to third-party drivers.

The company maintains that its contracts and terms of service clearly delineate the independent status of drivers, and it contends that imposing vicarious liability for off-duty or criminal conduct would extend traditional agency principles beyond accepted legal boundaries.

Plaintiff attorneys counter that Uber’s safety protocols are inadequate and that the company knew or should have known of widespread reports of sexual misconduct by drivers but failed to take effective action.

They also argue that Uber’s marketing and representations about rider safety created reasonable expectations that the platform bore responsibility for ensuring a safe environment.

A federal bellwether trial alleging Uber failed to prevent sexual assault by one of its drivers began in Phoenix, Arizona in January 2026.

The plaintiff in the case, Jaylynn Dean, alleges she was raped by an Uber driver in Tempe in November 2023 and asserts Uber knew of widespread sexual assaults committed by drivers but did not implement adequate safety measures.

A jury will decide whether Uber failed to protect its passengers and may influence how other claims are resolved.

This trial is the first major case to go before a jury out of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) that encompasses more than 3,000 pending lawsuits alleging that Uber did not properly screen drivers and failed to prevent sexual misconduct and assault.

The outcome of the Phoenix trial is expected to serve as a bellwether for the broader litigation.

A verdict for the plaintiff could affect valuation and strategy for the remaining cases and potentially pressure Uber toward settlement discussions.

Pretrial disputes remain active in the MDL, including motions about discovery and evidentiary issues.

Parties agreed on pretrial procedures for the first bellwether trial, including time allocations for presenting evidence.

In parallel to federal proceedings, related coordinated actions are advancing in state courts, including in California, potentially leading to additional verdicts and pressures on Uber.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges the driver assaulted her during or after the ride and that Uber’s background checks, monitoring practices, and safety systems were inadequate to prevent the attack. The suit contends that Uber markets itself as a safe transportation option while failing to implement sufficient safeguards to detect dangerous drivers or respond meaningfully to prior warning signs.

The plaintiff further alleges Uber prioritizes growth and driver availability over passenger safety, pointing to past reports and litigation involving similar allegations nationwide. She claims the company had notice of the risk of sexual misconduct by drivers but did not take adequate action to mitigate it.

Uber has denied responsibility for assaults committed by individual drivers and maintains that it has implemented safety measures such as background checks, in-app emergency features, and reporting tools. The company argues it should not be held liable for criminal acts carried out by third parties.

The Arizona case adds to a growing body of litigation against Uber alleging negligence and misrepresentation related to rider safety, as courts continue to grapple with the scope of rideshare companies’ legal responsibility for harm occurring during rides arranged through their platforms.

Uber filed motions seeking sanctions and attorney fees over allegations that a plaintiffs’ attorney in the Uber sexual assault MDL improperly shared confidential documents with lawyers handling unrelated cases.

At a recent hearing, the judge expressed serious concern over Stanley’s conduct but did not issue a final sanction, leaving the matter under continued review.

The MDL protective order is designed to prevent confidential discovery materials from being disclosed or used outside the scope of the litigation, ensuring privacy for sensitive documents and fairness across related legal proceedings.

Uber argued that Stanley’s actions demonstrated a disregard for these rules and set a troubling precedent for handling MDL discovery.

The company emphasized that repeated misuse of such materials could undermine the integrity of both federal and state court cases involving the same parties.

Attorneys who violate MDL protective orders risk sanctions ranging from fines to removal from leadership positions in the litigation.

Uber faces trial this week in Phoenix in a lawsuit filed by Jaylynn Dean, who claims an Uber driver sexually assaulted her during a 2022 ride.

The case represents the first jury trial to evaluate Uber’s liability defenses in sexual assault claims, with U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer presiding.

Breyer rejected Uber’s attempt to postpone the trial after the company claimed that pretrial advertising by Dean’s lawyers biased the jury pool.

The verdict is expected to have a significant impact beyond this case.

More than 3,000 similar lawsuits are pending in federal court, with over 500 in state court in California.

Lawyers on both sides see Dean’s case as a bellwether that could influence settlement talks and valuations in the broader litigation.

Uber asserts it cannot be held responsible for criminal acts committed by drivers using its platform, citing its background checks and safety disclosures.

Dean’s lawsuit claims Uber was aware of numerous sexual assault reports and did not take simple measures to safeguard riders.

A federal judge has ruled that Uber Technologies Inc. cannot tell jurors that the driver accused of sexual assault was never criminally charged, just days before the first bellwether trial in the nationwide Uber sexual assault litigation.

The ruling came ahead of the first federal test trial in the Uber MDL, which accuses the company of failing to protect passengers from sexual assault by drivers.

The case involves allegations that a passenger was raped by her Uber driver in Arizona.

The judge rejected Uber’s argument that the lack of criminal charges was relevant.

He noted that prosecutors may decline to bring charges for many reasons that have nothing to do with whether an assault occurred.

He also ruled that police conclusions about consent would be improper hearsay.

The court also allowed plaintiffs to present evidence about Uber’s internal safety decisions, marketing practices, and how the company has handled sexual assault issues in other countries.

The judge said this evidence could help jurors assess what Uber knew about risks and what safety measures were feasible.

However, the judge limited some evidence to avoid prejudice, including blocking references to high-profile individuals and excluding certain highly sensitive personal details unrelated to the core claims.

The upcoming bellwether trial is the first of its kind in the federal Uber sexual assault MDL.

Plaintiffs across the litigation allege Uber knew for years that drivers were sexually assaulting passengers but failed to implement basic safety measures such as stronger background checks and in-car cameras.

The outcome of this trial is expected to influence how thousands of similar Uber sexual assault lawsuits proceed nationwide.

A federal judge overseeing the nationwide Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation has denied Uber’s request to delay the first bellwether trial, keeping the case on track for a January 13 start date.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer rejected Uber’s bid to postpone the trial, which argued that a recent public advocacy advertising campaign had tainted the jury pool by portraying Uber as refusing to implement basic safety measures to protect passengers.

In a brief order, the court declined to delay the proceedings or grant Uber additional discovery related to the campaign.

Uber argued that the advertising campaign, titled “Every 8 Minutes,” misrepresented data about reports of sexual misconduct and unfairly prejudiced potential jurors ahead of the first bellwether trial.

The company sought to delay the trial, block further publication of the ads, expand jury questioning, and subpoena the advocacy group behind the campaign.

The court denied all requested relief.

Plaintiffs countered that Uber’s motion was a last-minute attempt to avoid trial and delay accountability.

They emphasized that the court has already implemented jury screening procedures and retains broad authority to address any potential bias during voir dire.

The first bellwether case involves Jaylynn Dean, who alleges she was raped by her Uber driver in Arizona.

The outcome of this trial is expected to shape the direction and potential settlement value of thousands of sexual assault claims pending against Uber nationwide.

With the court’s ruling, the Uber sexual assault litigation now moves into a critical trial phase, signaling that juries will soon begin hearing evidence on whether Uber’s safety practices were sufficient to protect riders.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit recorded an increase in total multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases from December 2025 to January 2026.

The docket rose from 2,949 total cases in December 2025 to 3,078 total cases in January 2026, resulting in 129 new filings during the month.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims that passengers experienced sexual misconduct or sexual assault during rides arranged through the Uber platform.

Plaintiffs allege that inadequate safety protocols, insufficient driver screening procedures, and limited in-app security measures contributed to the alleged incidents.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

A New York Times investigation reports that Uber has approved drivers with violent felony convictions in at least 22 states, as long as those convictions are more than seven years old.

According to the report, Uber prohibits drivers convicted of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, or terrorism, but permits approvals for other violent offenses, including assault, child abuse, and stalking.

The Times also discovered that in 35 states, Uber’s background checks usually only examine the state where a driver now lives, which can allow out-of-state convictions to be missed.

The report reveals that Uber has received reports of sexual assault or misconduct involving drivers at an average of one every eight minutes from 2017 to 2022.

Although the company describes most of those reports as “less serious,” the data still shows a serious report of sexual abuse or misconduct approximately every 32 minutes.

The Times reported multiple cases where Uber drivers convicted of rape in recent years also had prior violent felony convictions, including cases in California, where drivers with violent felonies are supposed to be permanently barred.

The findings provide more background on ongoing lawsuits claiming that Uber did not properly screen drivers and adequately protect riders, especially women.

State-level reviews highlight the gap between Uber’s internal policies and stricter regulatory standards.

In Massachusetts, regulators rechecked backgrounds in 2017 and banned about 8,000 ride-hailing drivers who had been approved earlier, most of them by Uber.

Internal company emails cited in the report reveal that executives recognized safety gaps but dismissed proposed measures, like fingerprint-based checks, citing cost and onboarding speed concerns.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit recorded an increase in total multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases from November 2025 to December 2025.

The docket rose from 2,783 total cases in November 2025 to 2,949 total cases in December 2025, resulting in 166 new filings.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims that passengers experienced sexual misconduct or assault during rides arranged through the Uber platform.

Plaintiffs allege that inadequate safety protocols, insufficient driver screening procedures, and limited in-app security measures contributed to the incidents.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

The first federal bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL is scheduled to begin on January 13, 2026, in Phoenix, Arizona.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will oversee the proceedings, which are intended to test claims against Uber brought by passengers who say drivers sexually assaulted them due to inadequate safety protocols.

More than 2,800 lawsuits have been filed in the federal MDL, consolidated in the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs allege Uber failed to perform proper background checks, ignored calls for gender-based ride options, and failed to implement basic safety measures like in-vehicle surveillance or assault prevention training for drivers.

The first bellwether case, filed by Jaylynn Dean, was rescheduled from January 7 to January 13.

A pretrial conference is set for January 6, with jury selection potentially spanning January 8–9. The parties are also expected to submit juror questionnaires by December 1.

Meanwhile, settlement talks continue between the parties.

These trials are intended to help gauge how juries may respond to evidence in future cases and could influence the outcome of broader negotiations.

Uber has expanded its “Women Preferences” ride feature to Houston, following a pilot launched in July 2025 in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit.

The feature allows women riders to request only women drivers and set this preference as permanent in their account.

Women drivers can also activate a mode to receive ride requests exclusively from women, including during high-demand periods.

The “Women Preferences” feature initially followed Uber’s 2022 U.S. safety report, which the company documented 2,717 cases of sexual assault and misconduct involving the platform between 2021 and 2022.

A recent New York Times investigation revealed that a total of 400,181 Uber trips resulted in reports of sexual assault and sexual misconduct between 2017 and 2022, a number far exceeding what the company had disclosed.

According to the NYT, Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes on average.

Thousands of Uber sexual assault lawsuits have been filed in federal court, claiming that it failed to perform adequate background checks on drivers and implement safety measures to protect passengers.

Attorneys for both sides in the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation continue meeting with a retired judge for ongoing settlement talks as they prepare for a series of bellwether trials scheduled through 2026.

According to a joint case management statement filed on October 29, Uber now faces 2,804 federal lawsuits consolidated before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California, along with an additional 750 cases pending in California state court.

The first federal bellwether trial, Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc., is scheduled to start on January 7, 2026, with five more cases to follow.

Settlement negotiations continue as parties finalize trial logistics, including jury selection and opening statements.

The discussions aim to prevent hundreds of individual trials over allegations that Uber failed to protect passengers from driver sexual assaults.

The first California state court trial ended in September with a mixed verdict: the jury found Uber negligent but not legally responsible for damages.

A second trial is scheduled for April 4, 2026.

The outcomes of these initial cases will likely influence the tone and worth of any possible global settlement as Judge Breyer gets ready to remand cases for trial if no agreement is made.

A North Texas mother has filed a civil lawsuit against Uber following the conviction of a Frisco-area Uber driver for sexually assaulting her 12-year-old daughter.

The conviction and subsequent legal action have renewed focus on rider safety and the company’s policies regarding unaccompanied minors.

According to CBS News Texas, the Uber Health driver, identified as 33-year-old Robert Johnson III, was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually assaulting a child.

Prosecutors stated that Johnson deviated from the assigned route and assaulted the girl while she was being transported from a pediatric mental health facility.

The facility used Uber Health to coordinate transportation, despite the company’s policy prohibiting minors from riding alone.

Following the criminal case, the victim’s mother filed a civil claim against Uber, alleging negligence in enforcing its policy and failing to protect riders.

Her attorney referenced Uber’s own safety data, noting that the company has acknowledged thousands of reports of sexual assaults involving rideshare drivers across the United States.

Between 2017 and 2022, Uber reported 12,522 sexual assaults nationwide. Lyft reported 6,809 between 2020 and 2022. 

A New York Times investigation found internal documents suggesting Uber may have received over 400,000 sexual assault or misconduct complaints during that same five-year span, far exceeding its published totals.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) review questioned the accuracy of rideshare assault statistics, citing underreporting and inconsistencies in data collection.

The GAO found that company-provided data do not represent the full scope of incidents.

Uber stated that rider safety remains its highest priority and highlighted measures such as background checks, GPS tracking, and in-app emergency features.

Uber Health announced additional safeguards, including stricter driver screening and enhanced emergency response integration for riders without app access.

Settlement negotiations are ongoing in the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits as attorneys prepare for a series of bellwether trials in 2026 that could influence the scope and terms of any broader settlement.

The lawsuits stem from allegations that Uber Technologies, Inc. failed to adequately protect passengers from sexual assault and misconduct by its drivers.

According to recent court filings, Uber faces approximately 2,804 federal cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California, as well as 750 additional cases in California state courts.

The complaints involve claims from former passengers who allege harassment, assault, kidnapping, and rape by Uber drivers.

Plaintiffs assert that Uber prioritized profits over passenger safety by conducting minimal background checks, neglecting to implement driver training on sexual misconduct prevention, failing to install in-vehicle cameras, and not providing an option for riders to choose the gender of their driver.

The Uber sexual assault lawsuit added 62 new cases between October and November, increasing from 2,721 to 2,783 total filings.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

New Jersey’s Attorney General has initiated a civil investigation into Uber, scrutinizing whether the company misled users about safety and concealed the scale of sexual assault and misconduct incidents on its platform.

The AG issued a subpoena in September demanding internal records related to assaults, safety features, and the company’s promotional claims.

The inquiry follows revelations that Uber received more than 400,000 reports of sexual assault or misconduct across the U.S. between 2017 and 2022—far exceeding publicly disclosed figures.

Legal observers view New Jersey’s probe as a possible harbinger of state-level accountability efforts targeting tech platforms whose growth strategies may have prioritized optics over passenger safety.

A female Uber driver in Nashville has filed a federal lawsuit claiming she was sexually assaulted by a passenger during a ride from Millersville to Hendersonville in September 2024. 

In her complaint, she alleges Uber’s safety mechanisms failed her: though she pressed the app’s emergency button, no assistance was rendered. 

She further contends that Uber neglected to warn drivers of high-risk rider pairings or provide sufficient protective measures such as in-car cameras or real-time monitoring. 

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeks both damages and structural reforms to Uber’s safety protocols. 

Uber declined to comment on the pending litigation, stating only that it is committed to improving platform safety. 

The case adds to a wave of lawsuits challenging rideshare companies’ responsibilities to protect drivers from harm.

A San Francisco County jury ruled in favor of Uber in the first bellwether trial after finding the company negligent but concluding that its negligence did not cause the plaintiff’s loss injuries.

The verdict was announced after three weeks of testimony and several days of jury deliberation.

The ruling marks a significant early victory for Uber in the overall litigation, providing insight into how juries might view evidence in similar future cases.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs say they will continue pursuing justice in future trials, noting that the outcome offers valuable insight into Uber’s defense strategy and the jury’s reasoning.

Between September and October, the Uber sexual assault lawsuit rose from 2,583 to 2,721 filed cases.

This litigation continues to involve serious allegations against Uber, claiming the company failed to implement adequate safety measures to prevent sexual assaults and physical attacks by drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s background checks and in-app safety features were insufficient, leaving passengers vulnerable.

The steady rise in filings underscores the ongoing visibility of this MDL and the continued pursuit of justice by survivors.

As court proceedings develop, more individuals have come forward, adding to the growing body of claims.

The case remains active, with key motions and discovery phases continuing in federal court.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

Uber’s response to sexual assault on its platform is now under congressional scrutiny.

On Wednesday, a House oversight subcommittee launched an investigation into how the company identifies, responds to, and discloses sexual assault and misconduct incidents.

The inquiry follows a New York Times report revealing that Uber received reports of sexual assault or misconduct nearly every eight minutes between 2017 and 2022, a staggering 400,181 incidents in total.

That figure dwarfs the 12,522 serious incidents the company previously disclosed.

The company is already facing more than 3,000 lawsuits nationwide, and this week, closing arguments wrapped in the first bellwether trial in California involving a woman who said she was assaulted by her Uber driver in 2016.

Updated data presented in court shows that reported sexual misconduct has risen in 2024, with more than 558,000 total incident reports now on record from 2017 through this year.

The congressional letter, led by Rep. Nancy Mace, criticized Uber’s failure to warn users about known risks and questioned why the company failed to adopt safety tools like in-car video recording or gender-based ride-matching, despite internal testing showing they were effective.

Uber has responded by reiterating that over 99.9% of trips occur without incident and says many reports fall under “less serious” categories like inappropriate comments or flirting.

Still, critics argue that the disparity in reported numbers, lack of transparency, and resistance to stronger safeguards point to a deeper cultural and accountability issue within the company.

With public pressure mounting and litigation accelerating, Uber’s liability is being put to the test.

A San Francisco jury is deliberating in a bellwether trial that could shape hundreds of sexual-assault claims against Uber Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary Raiser LLC.

The plaintiff, identified as Jessica C., alleges she was assaulted by an Uber driver in 2016 and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, with her counsel suggesting $22 million for lifetime trauma.

Her attorneys argue Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures and underreported incidents of sexual misconduct.

Uber, represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP, maintains it met regulatory standards and provided available safety tools, emphasizing that 99.9998% of rides occur without serious incident and contending it cannot guarantee absolute safety.

Uber also points to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s accounts and preexisting mental health conditions.

The case—In re: Uber Rideshare Cases, No. CJC-21-005188, and Jane Doe LSA 78 v. Uber Tech. Inc. et al., No. CGC-21-592427—is the first of its kind to reach trial and is expected to influence settlement valuations and strategy in related litigation.

The jury began deliberations September 25 and will continue next week.

Uber Technologies Inc. has asked the San Francisco Superior Court to enforce protective orders in coordinated sexual assault litigation involving more than 700 plaintiffs.

In a motion filed September 22, 2025, Uber urged Judge Ethan P. Schulman to compel plaintiffs’ counsel to formally certify that they have no knowledge of how sealed materials were provided to The New York Times.

The company argues that an August article quoting from sealed filings and describing internal investigative documents could only have been produced through an unauthorized disclosure in violation of protective orders entered in 2022 and amended in March 2025.

Uber reports that its own checks confirmed the documents were not obtained through a docketing error and states that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to meaningfully investigate or provide direct assurances when asked to certify compliance on August 1.

According to Uber, the leak compromises the integrity of the court process, threatens the confidentiality of future productions, and risks tainting jury pools in upcoming trials.

The company seeks swift action to address the breach and to safeguard the ongoing proceedings.

The motion was filed as the first bellwether trial in the coordinated cases continues.

The plaintiff, identified as Jessica C., alleges she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2016 and asserts claims of general negligence, common carrier negligence, and related theories.

Testimony to date has featured competing expert analyses of Uber’s safety practices and the prevalence of sexual misconduct incidents on the platform.

The coordinated proceedings are captioned In re: Uber Rideshare Cases, Case No. CJC-21-005188, and Jane Doe LSA 78 v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-21-592427, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.

This motion underscores the critical importance of rigorous compliance with protective orders in large-scale litigation.

Counsel should ensure robust internal safeguards for confidential materials and be prepared to certify compliance when challenged.

The federal judge overseeing more than 3,000 Uber sexual assault lawsuits has ordered that two bellwether cases be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

These trials will remain part of the first trial wave under the multidistrict litigation (MDL) centralized in the Northern District of California, where U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is presiding.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits involve allegations from passengers who report being harassed, assaulted, kidnapped, or raped by Uber drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber conducted only minimal background checks, failed to install cameras in vehicles, and did not provide sexual assault prevention training for drivers.

They claim the company prioritized profits while neglecting passenger safety.

The first bellwether trial, involving plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, is scheduled to begin in California federal court on January 7, 2026. 

In a September 16 pretrial order, Judge Breyer directed that two additional cases, identified only by numbers to protect the plaintiffs’ anonymity, be sent to North Carolina, where he will still preside.

The order states that assigning action numbers in the new district will allow the trials to move forward under his oversight.

Approximately 600 Uber sexual assault lawsuits are also pending in California state court.

The first state trial began September 8 in San Francisco Superior Court, with claims brought by a woman identified as Jessica C.

She alleges that she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in December 2019 and later developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

Attorneys in the case contend that Uber underreported passenger sexual assaults, citing company records reflecting more than 85,000 reports last year.

Attorneys also told jurors that Uber delayed implementing a driver gender selection option for female passengers, despite internal discussions of the feature years earlier.

A limited pilot program allowing riders to choose driver gender launched in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit in 2024. Lyft introduced a similar feature in 2023

Uber is facing mounting legal pressure as the first bellwether trial in a series of sexual assault cases unfolds in California state court.

The lawsuit, brought by a woman identified as Jessica C., accuses Uber and its subsidiary Raiser LLC of negligence for failing to implement safety measures.

Specifically, the lawsuit mentions a long-delayed program that would have allowed women to match only with women drivers.

Key Allegations and Internal Uber Documents

The plaintiff’s legal team presented video testimony from Uber’s Group Product Manager, Rebecca Payne, who was designated to speak on behalf of the company in the litigation.

Internal Uber records dating back to 2016 revealed repeated requests from users for a woman-only driver preference.

Uber’s safety team supported the idea, but company executives consistently stalled its rollout due to legal concerns and fears about damaging Uber’s public image.

A 2021 memo cited legal risks associated with anti-discrimination laws as a core reason for the delay.

Another document from 2022 referenced Uber’s successful launch of the program in Australia, noting that the country’s less litigious environment made implementation easier.

Payne acknowledged that even she would feel unsafe driving at night without a women-only filter, stating, “There isn’t much Uber can really do to protect me if a man gets into my car and starts sexually harassing or assaulting me.”

Safety Risks and Marketplace Impact

Payne admitted that Uber leadership was aware of data showing higher rates of serious sexual assault when women were matched with male drivers, with women being four times more likely to report such incidents.

Despite this, Uber hesitated to launch the program in the U.S. due to concerns about delays in ride availability, regulatory scrutiny, and how a women-only option might reinforce perceptions that Uber is unsafe for women.

An internal 2024 document cited inclusivity concerns, particularly around how to accommodate nonbinary and transgender users within a gender-based preference system.

Pilot Program Finally Launched in 2024

In June 2024, Uber’s executive team approved a limited pilot of the “Women Rider Preference” feature in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit.

This came after rider surveys indicated strong support: 72% of women said they were willing to wait longer, and 52% said they would pay more for a guaranteed woman driver.

Still, plaintiffs argue that the company’s decision to delay implementation for years amounted to negligence.

Uber has defended itself by asserting that assaults are “exceedingly rare” and that broader safety improvements are being prioritized.

Broader Legal Context

The trial is part of the Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP), consolidating over 500 sexual assault lawsuits against Uber.

The plaintiff’s claims include general negligence, common carrier negligence, and failure to act on known risks.

Her case is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for how the remaining cases may unfold.

Uber’s Senior Vice President Gus Fuldner testified Monday that passengers use the rideshare platform “at their own risk,” referencing language in Uber’s terms and conditions.

Plaintiff’s counsel asked him if he personally believed that, and he affirmed that he did.

Jurors also heard questions about Uber’s 2019 safety report, which only disclosed five categories of sexual misconduct incidents despite nonprofits urging the company to release data for all 21 categories it had created.

Fuldner acknowledged he was responsible for restricting the disclosures, defending the decision as prioritizing the most severe cases.

The testimony also looked into Uber’s long-discussed but limited efforts to expand the use of dash cams and in-app audio recording.

Fuldner stated that technical and logistical challenges have hindered progress despite years of internal debate.

Uber’s counsel responded by emphasizing the company’s background checks, GPS tracking, and safety features, pointing out that the accused driver had passed the screening process before being removed from the platform following the allegations.

The plaintiff, Jessica C., who alleges she was assaulted in December 2019 at age 18, is expected to testify this week.

The trial is set to resume Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court.

A Sacramento woman has filed a lawsuit against Uber alleging negligence and failure to protect her after she was abandoned by her driver and later sexually assaulted.

According to the complaint, the 23-year-old plaintiff ordered an Uber following a May 28, 2025 concert in downtown Sacramento, but the driver allegedly left her in a high-crime area instead of taking her to her home in Rosemont.

Without her phone or keys, she was approached by a man and woman who offered her a ride but instead took her to an apartment where she was assaulted at knifepoint.

The woman escaped the next morning and sought medical treatment.

The lawsuit claims Uber was aware of similar incidents and failed to properly train and supervise drivers or respond adequately when the assault was reported, pointing only to a generic email response with hotline numbers.

Sacramento police are investigating, and Uber has called the allegations “heartbreaking” but declined further comment.

The suit seeks damages for physical, emotional, and psychological harm and highlights potential issues of corporate negligence, duty of care, and the adequacy of ride-share safety policies.

A San Francisco judge prevented jurors from viewing internal Uber communications in which a company executive said he “trashed rape victims” while responding to press inquiries.

On the second day of the bellwether trial, Judge Ethan P. Schulman ruled that the Slack messages sent by Uber Communications Director Andrew Hasbun would stay out of the case as they were unduly prejudicial and not relevant to the plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued the exchange demonstrated Uber’s dismissive attitude toward passenger assault reports and should be taken into account when evaluating punitive damages.

Uber’s attorneys argued that the remark was about fixing inaccuracies in a media story and did not relate to the case.

Judge Schulman agreed with Uber, stating that the evidence posed a distracting “side show.”

Jurors, however, heard testimony about Uber’s internal communications strategy, including a 2017 document outlining how to present its $5 million commitment to anti-assault groups while minimizing the impact of sexual assault statistics.

Hasbun also confirmed an internal debate over the technical terms used in Uber’s 2019 safety report, which plaintiffs’ counsel argued softened language around sexual assaults.

The trial involving plaintiff Jessica C. is the first to move forward among over 500 coordinated cases in California state court, accusing Uber of failing to protect passengers from driver sexual assaults.

The first bellwether trial in the consolidated Uber sexual assault litigation began in San Francisco Superior Court, where hundreds of claims have been filed by survivors alleging they were assaulted by Uber drivers.

The plaintiff in this case, Jessica C., alleges she was sexually assaulted by her driver in December 2019 during a ride to the airport.

According to her legal team, the driver pulled off-route, restrained her, groped her, and made threatening sexual advances.

Despite the assault, Uber allegedly allowed the driver to continue operating on the platform for three more years due to a lack of incident reporting at the time.

Jessica’s attorneys argue that Uber prioritized rapid growth and profit over passenger safety, rejecting stricter safety protocols like in-vehicle dash cameras and fingerprint-based background checks.

They also claim Uber’s own internal data — previously undisclosed — reveals over 70,000 incidents of sexual violence in 2017 alone, climbing to more than 85,000 in 2024, far surpassing the lower figures Uber publicly reported.

Uber’s defense maintains that the company is statistically “exceptionally safe,” citing that only 0.0002% of trips involve a serious safety incident.

They argue that the company has implemented meaningful safety tools and conducted proper background checks on the driver involved.

Over 500 cases remain pending in California state court under the Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP).

Meanwhile, related cases in federal court continue, with partial dismissals of several bellwether claims issued in July.

This bellwether trial is expected to shape how future cases in the Uber sexual assault litigation will proceed and whether Uber will move toward settlements or continue contesting claims.

The first bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL has been delayed until early 2026.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer postponed the original December 8, 2025, trial date and rescheduled the case for January 7, 2026, citing unresolved discovery disputes.

The initial case involves claims by plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, who alleges that an Uber driver in Arizona raped her in November 2023.

Both sides informed the court that they need more time to resolve evidence issues, including concerns about missing smartphone data.

Uber faces over 2,500 lawsuits in the MDL, centered in the Northern District of California, alleging the company failed to protect passengers from sexual assault and harassment.

The result of the bellwether trials will be closely monitored, as jury responses could impact potential settlement negotiations.

If no resolution is reached after the bellwethers, Judge Breyer has indicated he might send individual cases back to federal courts across the country for trial.

The number of pending Uber sexual assault lawsuits increased between August and September.

According to recent filings, 2,583 cases were pending compared to 2,513 in August, reflecting an addition of 70 cases over the past month.

These lawsuits, which are being considered for consolidation into multidistrict litigation (MDL), allege that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures to protect riders from sexual assault and harassment by drivers.

Plaintiffs claim the company’s background check procedures and reporting systems were insufficient, leading to preventable incidents.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

A New York Times investigation obtained over 80,000 internal Uber records, revealing that the company’s legal team tracked more than 1,000 sexual assault claims that were not disclosed in its safety reports. 

These internal claims, identified between 2016 and 2020, comprised nearly 250 allegations of rape, more than twice the number Uber publicly acknowledged for the same period.

The documents reveal Uber attorneys consistently worked to suppress damaging information in litigation, often prioritizing corporate risk over transparency for survivors. 

In an internal review, Uber lawyers created a “risk list” of over 500 cases that could hurt the company’s legal standing if revealed; several involved drivers with prior complaints or red flags before the assaults happened.

The Times also reported that Uber continued to fight to send sexual assault cases to private arbitration, even after publicly stating in 2018 that it would allow survivors to pursue claims in court. 

In a 2022 lawsuit, Uber tried to force arbitration for a woman raped by a driver, citing changes in its terms of service she had unknowingly accepted.

Legal memos show Uber attorneys debated whether settling certain cases early would be cheaper than complying with discovery requests that might reveal broader systemic failures.

In some cases, Uber resisted providing data about repeat offender drivers or communications regarding internal safety policies, claiming it could set a precedent and lead to more liability.

These disclosures raise new questions about what Uber’s leadership and legal team knew, and when, regarding the extent of sexual assaults by drivers. 

Plaintiff attorneys in the consolidated California case state the records could support broader claims for punitive damages and strengthen arguments that Uber failed to address known safety risks for riders.

The Uber sexual assault MDL saw an increase of 154 cases between July and August, rising from 2,359 to 2,513 cases.

Plaintiffs allege Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures or respond appropriately to known risks.

Discovery proceedings are ongoing.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

On July 28, 2025, Judge Breyer held a case management conference in the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation.

A case management conference is a court meeting where the judge and attorneys discuss the progress of a lawsuit and plan the next steps, including scheduling and procedural matters.

The court has extended the deadline for parties to submit proposals regarding the order of bellwether trials to August 12, 2025.

Counsel must also state whether they believe trials should take place in different judicial districts.

The next case management conference is scheduled for August 22, with a joint management statement due by August 20.

The selection and order of these initial trials are crucial.

Early bellwether verdicts can shape future settlement values, highlight the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence, and set benchmarks for compensation.

If strong plaintiff cases go first, they may pressure Uber into settlements.

However, if defense-friendly cases are tried early, it could weaken the plaintiffs’ overall position.

These decisions carry significant weight for the outcome and momentum of the litigation.

A judge has denied Uber’s attempt to dismiss the upcoming bellwether trials in the Uber sexual assault MDL, allowing those cases to proceed.

Uber has repeatedly attempted to exclude individual sex abuse lawsuits from the bellwether process, arguing they should be dealt with separately.

The court rejected that effort, indicating that these representative cases will stay in the MDL and move forward to trial.

Bellwether trials are anticipated to start before the end of 2025.

These initial trials will help determine the course of the litigation by testing essential legal arguments and potential settlement values.

Uber is likely to keep appealing the ruling, but this recent decision limits their options and moves the first wave of cases closer to court.

An Ohio federal judge has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to clarify whether the mobile apps used by Uber and Lyft qualify as “products” under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA).

The request stems from a personal injury lawsuit involving a car crash in which a rideshare driver was using one of the companies’ apps at the time of the incident.

The central legal issue is whether the design of a rideshare app can be subject to product liability claims under OPLA, which governs defective product cases in the state.

Uber and Lyft argue that their apps are not tangible products and therefore fall outside the scope of the statute.

However, the judge noted that even if the apps are not classified as products, the plaintiff may still pursue design-defect negligence claims under common law.

This distinction could determine whether the plaintiff must meet the stricter requirements of OPLA or can proceed under more traditional negligence theories.

The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up the certified question.

A decision could have broad implications for how courts handle product liability claims involving software and app-based services.

U.S. District Judge Charles R.. Breyer has denied Uber’s motion to dismiss all claims in the sexual assault multidistrict litigation, allowing the first bellwether trial to go forward as scheduled on December 8, 2025.

The ruling keeps the status quo for five of the six initial bellwether cases selected in May, allowing plaintiffs to refile the dismissed complaint.

Both parties must also nominate a replacement case within 14 days.

Over 2,300 lawsuits are consolidated in the Northern District of California, alleging Uber’s failure to protect passengers from driver assaults by neglecting to establish stronger safety protocols.

Plaintiffs claim that Uber performed insufficient background checks and overlooked potential safety measures, such as gender-based driver selection or in-vehicle surveillance.

While Judge Breyer dismissed certain parts of the claims, the main allegations stay in place, paving the way for bellwether trials that could greatly impact future jury awards and potential global settlement negotiations.

In the ongoing lawsuits against Uber over alleged sexual assaults by drivers, the judge is now considering whether passengers who filed complaints about the same drivers can be contacted by the plaintiffs’ legal team.

Earlier, the court ordered Uber to hand over contact information for passengers who may have experienced or witnessed misconduct by the drivers involved in the lawsuits.

These passengers could serve as important witnesses.

But Uber has pushed back, asking the judge to cancel that order. Uber argues that contacting these individuals could violate their privacy.

While this disagreement is being sorted out, both sides have prepared a possible plan: if the judge ultimately rejects Uber’s objection, Uber would send a notice to those passengers first.

The notice would explain that their information may be shared with the plaintiffs, and they’d have seven days to object.

What’s unclear?

• The judge hasn’t yet ruled on Uber’s objection, so it’s uncertain if the contact plan will move forward at all.
• It’s also not known how many passengers would be affected by this or whether any would object if the notice is sent.

For now, this part of the case is on hold, pending the court’s decision.

The Uber sexual assault MDL now includes 2,359 cases as of July, up from 2,175 in June. 

This marks one of the largest single-month increases in the litigation this year.

Plaintiffs continue to accuse Uber of failing to implement proper driver screening, monitoring, and safety measures, resulting in widespread sexual assaults.

The rise in filings follows ongoing media attention and increased awareness campaigns that may be driving more survivors to come forward.

Discovery remains active, with parties focusing on internal Uber safety policies and prior complaint handling.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

Judge Cisneros issued an order on June 28, prompting Uber to more strictly follow the Bellwether Deposition Protocol in response to discovery issues raised in a June 23 status report.

The protocol mandates that both parties provide two possible deposition dates within five business days of a request.

If there is a dispute over whether protocol was followed, the parties must submit a joint letter.

The court emphasized that Uber must comply even if it questions a deponent’s relevance.

Delays are only permitted if the witness is a former employee who cannot be found despite diligent efforts.

The judge also approved a timeline for resolving disputes over litigation funding subpoenas before formal briefing starts.

On June 12, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros instructed third-party vendors Chekr, Inc. and Accurate Background, LLC to supply background check records for Uber drivers implicated in six bellwether sexual assault lawsuits set for trial in December.

The ruling approves a request from the plaintiffs for documents included in the discovery process of the federal Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The background check firms claimed that the records were shielded as “consumer reports” according to federal law.

Nonetheless, the court ruled that these protections are not applicable when records fall under a valid court order.

Judge Cisneros highlighted that the documents are “highly relevant” to the bellwether claims.

These claims state that Uber failed to exclude unsafe drivers and implement essential safety measures for passengers.

The materials will only be produced for “attorneys’ eyes only,” unless authorized by the court or relevant parties for broader disclosure.

Among more than 2,000 lawsuits consolidated in the Northern District of California, the six selected cases are preparing for the initial trial wave, scheduled to commence on December 8, 2025.

The results from these trials could impact upcoming settlement talks as Uber faces ongoing scrutiny over passenger safety issues.

The number of Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits in federal court increased by 113 cases between May and June, bringing the total to 2,175.

This marks one of the largest monthly case jumps to date, reflecting continued claimant engagement and attorney outreach.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit centers on claims that Uber failed to implement adequate passenger safety protocols, leaving riders vulnerable to assault by drivers.

Plaintiffs continue to push for the disclosure of internal safety records and driver background check policies, while the court weighs discovery disputes that could shape the evidentiary scope of early trial phases.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has vetoed House Bill 1291, a rideshare safety measure introduced after Democratic Representative Jenny Willford reported being sexually assaulted during a Lyft ride.

The bill passed with bipartisan support, aimed to tighten background check standards, limit interactions between drivers and passengers, and enhance the ability to record rides.

Polis expressed concerns about privacy conflicts and regulatory feasibility, stating that “unclear language on audio-video recording” and impractical implementation timelines made the bill “unworkable.”

His veto came after substantial opposition from Uber and Lyft, including a direct threat from Uber to withdraw from Colorado.

Uber also sent in-app messages encouraging users to oppose the legislation, which reportedly influenced the governor’s decision.

Willford, who is also suing Lyft, called the veto a setback for survivor-led reforms.

She and other sponsors remarked that Polis favored tech corporations over rider safety and overlooked efforts to reach a compromise.

Survivors of other assaults involving rideshare drivers have also urged the governor to sign the bill, emphasizing that their goal is accountability, not retribution or disruption of service.

Uber has requested that a federal judge in California relocate 13 of the 20 upcoming bellwether trials in the sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL)  to other states, arguing that its terms of use mandate these cases be heard in the locations where the assaults occurred.

In a motion filed on Friday, the company stated that users accepted this forum selection clause when registering for the app and that federal law supports its enforcement.

In 16 cases, the plaintiffs seek to retain the trials in the Northern District of California, arguing that having a single venue will enhance efficiency and consistency in the process.

Uber stated that there was no valid reason to disregard the agreed-upon terms, and the trials should occur in courts in states such as Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

The court has already scheduled six cases for trial later this year.

These early trials are anticipated to play a crucial role in shaping the direction of the remaining litigation.

The lawsuit claims that Uber did not take action to prevent sexual assaults by drivers, despite having internal reports dating back to 2014.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims from riders who allege they were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers using the Uber platform.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures to protect passengers from preventable harm.

180 cases have been added to the Uber Sexual Assault MDL in the past month.

575 cases have been added to the litigation since January 1st.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

The first bellwether trial, which revolves around allegations of Uber drivers sexually assaulting passengers, is set to commence on December 8, 2025.

The litigation, centralized as part of a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, involves more than 1,900 lawsuits accusing Uber of negligence in preventing sexual assaults, harassment, and rapes by its drivers.

To manage the large volume of cases, Judge Breyer has established a plan for five waves of bellwether trials, each wave containing a subset of 20 representative lawsuits selected by both plaintiffs and defense counsel.

Each trial will proceed individually, as the court has firmly rejected the plaintiffs’ requests for consolidated trials.

This decision, aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the bellwether process, underscores the court’s commitment to a fair and thorough legal process.

If the first selected case in a wave settles before trial, subsequent cases in the wave will be tried in sequence.

Earlier this month, Uber filed a renewed motion to dismiss several of the bellwether cases.

The company seeks dismissal with prejudice of fraud and misrepresentation claims, partial dismissal of product liability claims, and dismissal of claims related to nonphysical injuries. Plaintiffs have yet to respond to this latest motion.

The bellwether trials are designed to serve as test cases, informing settlement discussions and trial strategies for the broader litigation.

However, verdicts in these trials will not be binding on other individual lawsuits.

Average jury awards in these cases are expected to influence any potential global settlement negotiations significantly.

Central to the lawsuits are allegations that Uber failed to implement sufficient driver background checks, install vehicle surveillance, offer gender-based driver preferences, and properly train drivers on preventing sexual misconduct.

Plaintiffs argue that meaningful safety improvements did not accompany Uber’s introduction of Safe Ride Fees in 2014.

These fees were introduced as a measure to enhance passenger safety and security.

Still, the plaintiffs claim that they did not result in any significant changes to the safety measures that Uber had implemented.

The outcomes of these bellwether trials, which are set to play a pivotal role in shaping the future resolution of the MDL, will have a profound impact on whether hundreds of additional cases will proceed to individual trials nationwide.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly

Plaintiffs in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Uber Technologies, Inc. are requesting that a judge permit multiple cases to be tried together in the first bellwether trial, which is set for December 8, 2025.

The lawsuits include over 1,900 claims made by passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted, harassed, or raped by Uber drivers.

The request was submitted to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who oversees the MDL in the Northern District of California, on April 1, 2025.

Plaintiffs argue that merging several claims into a single trial would enhance efficiency and offer a clearer assessment of how juries might react to recurring evidence, such as expert testimony regarding the long-term effects of sexual assault and Uber’s safety practices.

Uber has formally opposed the request, stating in its response that a trial involving multiple plaintiffs could bias the jury unfairly and would not deliver the benefits that the plaintiffs suggest.

The company asserts that each claim should be evaluated individually, considering the unique circumstances surrounding each alleged incident.

The MDL was established in October 2023 to consolidate and oversee pretrial proceedings for similar cases across the U.S.

All plaintiffs claim that Uber did not take reasonable measures to protect passengers, including failing to require in-car cameras, not providing riders with control over driver gender, and performing only minimal background checks.

As part of the MDL process, Judge Breyer previously instructed both parties to select 10 cases each to create a bellwether pool of 20 representative lawsuits.

These cases are now undergoing discovery and expert review. The Court has not yet decided which case or cases will be tried first in December.

The plaintiffs’ April 1 letter also requests that the Court establish firm deadlines for final bellwether selections and the completion of discovery to ensure adherence to the trial date.

Although verdicts in bellwether trials are not binding on other cases in the MDL, they can influence future settlement discussions or inform potential compensation amounts.

If no global settlement is reached after these initial trials, the remaining cases may be sent back to federal courts across the country for individual trials.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly. 

The Uber sexual assault litigation saw its largest monthly increase in filings from March 2025 to April 2025, rising from 1,600 cases to 1,883, an increase of 283 cases.

This surge in filings reflects growing concerns about safety and security, as well as heightened awareness of the legal implications surrounding incidents of sexual assault within ride-sharing services.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In a precedent-setting decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that more than 1,600 sexual assault cases against Uber will be consolidated and heard before a single judge in San Francisco, rejecting Uber’s attempt to block the mass lawsuit.

Uber had argued that a clause in its user agreement prohibited the centralization of these cases, but the court disagreed, allowing the lawsuits to proceed together.

This ruling has far-reaching implications not only for Uber but for other companies in the gig economy, including Lyft and home-sharing platforms, that also face similar liability claims.

The cases stem from allegations that Uber failed to properly screen drivers, failed to respond adequately to reports of misconduct, and neglected to implement safety measures that could have protected riders.

The plaintiffs argue that Uber’s actions, or lack thereof, led to numerous incidents of sexual assault.

Uber’s defense relied on the claim that its user agreement’s terms, which riders accept before using the app, should shield it from such consolidated lawsuits.

However, the court’s decision, which aligns with legal precedents, allows the cases to proceed, with the potential to uncover significant evidence against the company.

Legal experts and advocates for sexual assault survivors are watching closely, as this decision could influence future cases against tech companies and reshape how such companies handle safety and liability.

If Uber ultimately loses these consolidated cases, the ruling could lead to costly changes in its operations, such as increased background checks for drivers, enhanced safety protocols, and the installation of in-ride cameras.

Additionally, it could force the company to disclose sensitive internal documents related to sexual assault incidents that it has worked to keep private.

This ruling is seen as a major win for the plaintiffs and advocates for safer tech platforms, as it sets a clear legal precedent about the enforceability of app-based terms of use and highlights the responsibility companies have to ensure user safety.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In March 2025, the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit saw a rise in new filings, reaching 1,600 cases, an increase of 38 from the 1,562 cases recorded in February 2025.

February had experienced a larger increase of 75 cases compared to the previous month.

While the rise in March is slightly smaller, it still reflects continued awareness and legal action being taken by individuals affected by allegations of sexual assault related to Uber rides.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits involve allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and other violent crimes committed by Uber drivers during rides, as well as claims against the company for failing to ensure rider safety.

Many Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits focus on accusations of inadequate background checks for drivers, insufficient safety measures, and the company’s failure to adequately address complaints and prevent such incidents.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is facing a growing number of lawsuits related to sexual abuse and assault by its drivers. Currently, more than 1,500 cases have been filed across the federal court system, with additional claims in California state court.

These lawsuits allege that Uber failed to implement crucial safety measures that could have prevented assaults, including inadequate background checks and lack of proper security features like cameras in vehicles.

The lawsuits claim Uber is responsible for the abuse since it has a duty to protect passengers.

In an effort to streamline the litigation, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was created in October 2023, centralizing all claims before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in California.

To manage the growing number of cases, Judge Breyer has selected 20 lawsuits to serve as “bellwether” trials, which will help gauge how juries might respond to evidence and expert testimony that will be repeated in future cases.

Both plaintiffs and defendants have identified 10 cases each for preparation, which will go through extensive discovery, including depositions and pretrial motions. 

The bellwether trials are expected to begin on December 8, 2025.

The outcome of these bellwether trials is expected to influence how Uber handles future settlements, as the company seeks to avoid hundreds of individual trials.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

A Boston city councilor is calling for “significant changes” after a woman accused her Uber driver of rape.

Hermann Ngoufack Jiokeng, 39, was arrested in Boston’s Brighton neighborhood on Sunday after the woman reported the assault during a ride from South Boston to her home.

Police later confirmed Jiokeng was an Uber driver.

He is currently being held pending a dangerousness hearing on Friday.

Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn emphasized the need for strict measures to prevent such violent crimes, calling for the supervision of ride-sharing companies to be transferred to the Boston Police Department and for comprehensive background checks, including fingerprinting, for drivers.

Currently, Uber conducts criminal background checks annually, but fingerprinting is not required.

Flynn’s calls for reform come after another incident involving an Uber Eats driver, Roiber Andres Rodriguez Melendez, who allegedly raped a woman in Wilbraham. Uber has responded by banning the account and offering support to law enforcement.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In February 2025, the number of Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits surged to 1,562, an increase of 75 filings compared to the 1,487 cases reported in January 2025.

This significant rise highlights the ongoing concern over safety issues within the ride-sharing industry, with plaintiffs alleging sexual assault and harassment by Uber drivers.

As more individuals come forward with claims, the litigation continues to grow, as victims seek justice and compensation for the traumatic experiences they endured.

The sharp increase in filings underscores the growing recognition of these serious allegations and reflects the broader public demand for accountability and improved safety measures within the ride-sharing sector.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Nevada Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Uber’s attempt to cap contingency fees for attorneys at 20% in civil lawsuits, a move critics argued would have made it harder for victims – including survivors of sexual assault by Uber Drivers, to secure legal representation.

The ruling blocks a proposed ballot initiative backed by Uber and Nevadans for Fair Recovery, which the court found to be “misleading and confusing.”

Survivors and legal advocates celebrated the decision, calling it a victory for accountability in sexual assault cases against Uber.

While Uber has denied wrongdoing in these lawsuits, critics argue that the company’s initiative was a calculated effort to limit its financial liability.

Had the court approved the proposal, it would have gone to the state legislature and potentially taken effect in 2027.

Survivors and advocates vow to continue their fight, while Uber has yet to comment on the decision.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In the ongoing Uber sexual assault litigation, the court has rejected Uber’s attempts to limit the production of key documents created after November 2023.

A firm cutoff date of December 1, 2024, has been set for document discovery, while allowing narrowly tailored requests for more recent materials.

This decision reinforces the need for transparency and prevents delays in uncovering information related to passenger safety policies.

The court also dismissed efforts to slow depositions, emphasizing that discovery obligations must be met without further delay, regardless of Uber’s coordination with state court proceedings.

This ruling underscores the importance of accountability in this critical litigation.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The number of Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits pending in multidistrict litigation (MDL) has increased from 1,459 in December to 1,487 in January 2025, reflecting a rise of 28 new cases.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits involve allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and other violent crimes committed by Uber drivers during rides, as well as claims against the company for failing to ensure rider safety.

The increase in case filings indicates that victims continue to seek legal recourse for incidents involving Uber, highlighting ongoing concerns over the company’s responsibility to protect passengers.

Many Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits focus on accusations of inadequate background checks for drivers, insufficient safety measures, and the company’s failure to adequately address complaints and prevent such incidents.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The federal litigation involving over 1,400 Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits has progressed toward bellwether trials, with U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer finalizing the selection process for early test cases.

Both parties have been directed to identify 10 cases each by February 14, 2025, forming a group of 20 lawsuits to undergo case-specific discovery and trial preparations.

The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on December 8, 2025.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits, centralized in a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, involve allegations that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures, enabling drivers to sexually assault passengers.

In addition to the federal cases, hundreds of related claims remain pending in California state courts.

The selected lawsuits will file amended complaints by March 14, 2025, with discovery closing by September 22, 2025.

Judge Breyer’s pretrial order also sets deadlines for Daubert and dispositive motions by October 8, 2025.

These bellwether trials aim to provide insight into jury responses, potentially influencing future settlements or outcomes for the remaining cases.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) reported 1,411 case filings for the Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit in November.

By December, the number of case filings increased to 1,459, reflecting a growth of 48 cases.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims that passengers were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers, with allegations that the company failed to implement adequate safety measures or properly vet drivers.

The increase in filings may result from heightened awareness of these issues, media coverage, or individuals coming forward with additional claims of abuse.

The Uber Sexual Assault multidistrict litigation continues to grow as more individuals seek justice for the alleged harm caused by the company’s failure to protect its passengers.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is currently involved in significant litigation, facing nearly 3,000 sexual assault lawsuits consolidated in both a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and California state court.

Plaintiffs in these cases allege that Uber’s platform has failed to adequately protect users from serious misconduct by drivers, with claims focusing on Uber’s alleged insufficient safety protocols.

Uber is actively challenging the MDL’s centralized approach, a method designed to streamline cases with similar facts, like these sexual assault allegations. 

Uber recently sought a filing deadline within the MDL, intending to limit the influx of new claims. 

The company is also advocating for case transfers from the MDL to the jurisdictions where individual incidents allegedly occurred.

This push for local adjudication may present logistical and financial challenges for plaintiffs, potentially hindering their collective legal strategy.

Uber maintains that its platform is fundamentally safe, claiming that safety protocols are adequately in place.

However, Uber has been vocal about its ongoing efforts to improve platform safety, suggesting that the company recognizes areas for enhancement.

These efforts may reflect both an attempt to manage public perception and a strategic move to mitigate liability in current and potential future cases.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit centers on claims from victims who allege that they experienced sexual assault or harassment during rides arranged through the Uber platform.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber failed to implement sufficient safety measures to protect passengers, leading to traumatic and life-altering incidents.

In October, 1,346 cases were filed in connection with the Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit.

By November, that number rose to 1,411, an increase of 65 cases.

This increase highlights growing awareness among victims and their pursuit of legal action to hold Uber accountable for alleged safety failures.

These cases underscore the severe impact of sexual assault, affecting victims’ physical, emotional, and mental well-being.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is pushing for the dismissal of a federal lawsuit filed in July 2024, which claims the rideshare company was negligent in a sexual assault case.

In court documents, Uber argues that it is “not legally responsible” for the crimes committed, stating that the company is not liable for his actions simply because he utilized their service.

Uber’s legal team asserts that just as the manufacturer of a computer or an Internet service provider is not responsible for crimes committed through their products, Uber should not be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party using its app.

The lawsuit alleges negligence and illegal sex trafficking against Uber and the unnamed drivers who transported the minors.

The plaintiffs contend that Uber failed to protect the children from a “real and present danger” of child sex trafficking, despite the company having received multiple warnings regarding this issue.

They argue that Uber’s drivers knowingly transported the girls, who were underage, without an adult chaperone or parental permission.

Uber has sought to have the lawsuit moved from state court in South Carolina to federal court in Columbia, where it has requested the dismissal of the case.

Additionally, Uber is seeking to exclude references to its profits from the lawsuit, claiming these details serve only to cast the company in a negative light.

The judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis, has yet to rule on Uber’s motions or the families’ recent filings, and mediation has been ordered, with both sides expected to exchange records by mid-2025.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In the latest development within the Uber passenger sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), a California federal magistrate judge recently denied Uber’s attempt to reclaim a “safety criteria” document that was inadvertently shared during pretrial proceedings.

Uber contended that this document, which outlined a policy update, was privileged since it was meant for review by in-house counsel for legal advice.

However, Judge Lisa J. Cisneros determined that the document’s primary purpose was driven by Uber’s communications and public policy teams, not specifically for legal counsel, negating Uber’s claim to privilege.

Judge Cisneros noted that the document was focused on “public outreach” around policy changes tied to California’s Proposition 47, which reclassified certain criminal offenses.

Although Uber’s in-house counsel reviewed the document after its creation, Judge Cisneros clarified that this later involvement didn’t make the document privileged.

“If the document was not privileged when Uber’s policy and communications teams created it, then merely sending a copy later for lawyers to review does not retroactively render it privileged,” she explained.

This ruling underscores the ongoing complexities of the MDL, where plaintiffs argue that Uber allowed drivers with past misconduct onto its platform, leading to incidents of sexual assault against passengers.

In recent months, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed several claims within the MDL, though some were permitted to proceed with amendments.

Judge Cisneros also directed Uber and the plaintiffs to consult regarding two additional documents with attachments that Uber is trying to claim under privilege.

A resolution or further briefings on this issue are expected by mid-October.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TruLaw for a free consultation. Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit centers around claims that the rideshare company failed to adequately protect passengers from incidents of sexual assault by drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber did not implement sufficient safety measures, such as thorough background checks, to prevent assaults and that the company did not take appropriate actions in response to reported incidents.

In September, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) reported 1,263 active Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits.

By October, the number of cases pending in the Uber Sexual Assault MDL had risen to 1,346, an increase of 83 cases.

Survivors of these assaults are pursuing legal action against Uber to hold the company accountable for negligence in ensuring rider safety, seeking compensation for the harm they’ve experienced.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Uber Sexual Assault Litigation, which addresses claims of sexual assault committed by Uber drivers, has seen a significant surge in case filings.

In August 2024, there were 387 active cases in the Uber Sexual Assault Litigation.

By September 2024, this number has dramatically increased to 1,263, reflecting a substantial rise in new filings.

The sharp increase in case numbers indicates a growing number of victims coming forward to seek justice.

Plaintiffs in this litigation allege that Uber failed to implement sufficient safety measures and background checks, leading to incidents of sexual assault during rides.

These cases highlight the serious risks posed to passengers and the ongoing need for better protective measures within the rideshare industry.

This substantial rise in filings underscores the importance of seeking legal representation if you or a loved one has been a victim of sexual assault while using Uber.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

In a significant development within the Uber driver sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer has dismissed several claims brought under Texas and California state laws.

The dismissal, issued on August 15, 2024, affects a number of the over 400 lawsuits filed across the United States that allege Uber’s failure to implement adequate safety measures led to widespread sexual assaults by its drivers.

Judge Breyer’s order highlights deficiencies in the master complaint and short-form complaints filed by plaintiffs, noting a lack of individualized allegations necessary to establish causation.

The judge emphasized that for the litigation to proceed, the complaints must include specific details linking the alleged assaults to Uber’s actions or inactions, such as inadequate background checks or failure to implement safety features within the app.

Despite the dismissal, the judge has allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to file amended complaints with more detailed allegations.

This decision gives plaintiffs a chance to address the court’s concerns by specifying how Uber’s alleged failures directly contributed to the individual assaults.

A case management conference is scheduled for August 29, 2024, where the court will discuss the timeline for filing these amended complaints and any subsequent challenges to the new pleadings.

This conference is expected to set the stage for how the litigation will move forward, particularly concerning the upcoming bellwether trials, which are designed to test key issues and evidence that could influence the resolution of the remaining cases.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is currently pushing a ballot measure in Nevada that could significantly limit the legal fees lawyers can collect in lawsuits, a move that could make it harder for plaintiffs to file cases against the company.

This effort comes as Uber faces numerous lawsuits from customers who claim they were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers.

The proposed measure, backed by Uber through a political action committee (PAC), seeks to cap contingency fees at 20%, down from the current 40% in some cases.

This cap would be the strictest in the country, potentially making it financially difficult for lawyers to take on complex cases against large companies like Uber.

Critics argue that the measure could effectively prevent victims from seeking justice, particularly in cases involving serious misconduct.

Uber has denied that the initiative is intended to reduce its legal exposure, stating that the goal is to ensure plaintiffs receive a larger share of any settlements.

The initiative mirrors past efforts by Uber and other companies to use ballot measures to alter laws in their favor, such as the successful 2020 California proposal that classified gig workers as independent contractors.

The Nevada measure has faced opposition from various groups, including those representing sexual assault survivors, who argue that it misleads voters and could hinder access to justice.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit involves claims against Uber for failing to protect passengers from sexual assault by drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s inadequate background checks and safety measures have led to numerous instances of sexual assault.

In July, there were 321 filings in the Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit.

By August, this number increased to 387 filings.

The rise in filings indicates a growing number of survivors coming forward and seeking legal action against Uber for what they have experienced.

Uber has been criticized for insufficient driver background checks and inadequate safety protocols, leading to numerous cases of sexual assault.

Victims report significant physical and emotional trauma, prompting legal actions against Uber for their lack of effective protective measures.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Uber is facing a lawsuit from two South Carolina families, alleging the company facilitated the transportation of their daughters to a house across state lines, where they were assaulted.

The lawsuit claims Uber drivers took the children to the perpetrator’s home without notifying their parents, and returned them without raising concerns about the situation.

The lawsuit demands Uber enhance safety measures, including installing cameras in vehicles, eliminating penalties for drivers who refuse to pick up unaccompanied minors, and implementing mandatory anti-trafficking training for all drivers.

It also highlights the need for Uber to adopt stricter safety protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Uber responded to the lawsuit with a statement emphasizing their commitment to combating human trafficking.

The company outlined their ongoing efforts, including driver education and collaboration with law enforcement to address and report suspected trafficking cases.

The families aim to ensure that Uber takes responsibility and implements measures to protect children and prevent such incidents from happening again.

This lawsuit in South Carolina is individual and separate from the multidistrict litigation (MDL) filed against the rideshare company in California federal court.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

Lyft has agreed to implement several safety and governance reforms to settle a shareholder lawsuit accusing the company’s officers and directors of insufficient measures to prevent sexual and physical assaults by drivers.

The preliminary settlement reached in a California federal court requires a judge’s approval.

Key points of this settlement include:

• Enhanced Passenger Safety Features: Lyft will boost awareness of the “Alert 911 Silently” feature in its app for reporting misconduct and make it easier to report problems 24/7 to a live human.
• Improved Training and Ethics Code: Lyft has committed to enhancing driver training and its code of business conduct and ethics.
• Three-Year Duration: The changes will be in effect for at least three years.

• No Direct Payment from Officers and Directors: The officers and directors will not pay any money to the company.
• Plaintiffs’ Legal Fees: Insurers will cover $700,000 to cover the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

Shareholders claimed that Lyft’s reputation suffered due to inadequate driver training and background checks, including those with histories of sexual misconduct.

The lawsuit also alleged that Lyft concealed these issues before its March 2019 initial public offering (IPO) and hid defects in its electric bikes that led to injuries.

Many passengers have also accused Uber drivers of sexual assault, with over 300 lawsuits combined into a federal class action in San Francisco.

The number of plaintiffs could reach the thousands.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

In a significant development, the court handling the Uber Sexual Assault MDL has granted plaintiffs access to critical documents and data regarding safety incidents within Uber, including GPS data and trip details.

This information is essential for identifying patterns of sexual assault and misconduct, as well as understanding Uber’s knowledge and response to these incidents.

Although the court denied access to all 800,000 user reports, the specific data related to sexual assault and misconduct will provide valuable insights.

The Uber Passenger Sexual Assault MDL in California has seen a 16% increase in cases, rising from 276 to 321 lawsuits.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit involves claims from individuals who have experienced sexual assault while using Uber services.

This lawsuit seeks to hold Uber accountable for passenger safety.

In June, there were 276 Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit filings, by July this number increased to 321.

Sexual assault during Uber rides causes severe trauma, leading to long-term psychological and emotional damage.

Victims often suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and depression, significantly impacting their quality of life.

This has led more individuals to join the Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit.

The Uber Sexual Assault lawsuit aims to hold the company accountable for failing to protect passengers.

Affected individuals should consult an Uber sexual assault lawyer.

If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

Use the free and confidential chatbot on this page to find if you qualify to file a claim instantly.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing the Uber passenger sexual assault lawsuits has granted the rideshare company permission to pursue an immediate appeal concerning the recent ruling on the consolidation of cases into a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

This decision follows Uber’s claim that the consolidation violated the “terms of service” agreed upon by riders.

However, the court denied Uber’s request to stay all pretrial proceedings during the appeal process.

Uber currently faces over 250 lawsuits from former passengers alleging sexual assault, attack, or rape by drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber failed to implement sufficient safety measures to prevent sexual predators from becoming drivers.

Despite the introduction of “Safe Ride Fees” in 2014, plaintiffs maintain that background checks remain superficial, and necessary steps such as adding surveillance cameras or providing driver training on sexual assault and harassment have not been taken.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established the Uber sexual assault lawsuit MDL in October 2023, consolidating cases before Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California.

The MDL aims to facilitate coordinated discovery and conduct early “bellwether” trials to assess jury reactions to evidence and testimonies that may recur throughout the claims.

Uber has opposed the MDL, arguing that the plaintiffs forfeited their right to centralized proceedings under the app’s terms of service, Uber sought to have the cases dismissed or returned to their original district courts, citing a “Non-Consolidation Clause.”

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

Call today for a free consultation or use the confidential chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.

The latest filings from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) indicate that there are currently 276 cases in the Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, with 24 new cases added in the past month.

The lawsuits allege that Uber failed to properly screen its drivers and implement necessary safety measures, contributing to sexual assaults on passengers.

This negligence is claimed to have directly led to the harm experienced by passengers.

Survivors of sexual assaults involving Uber drivers are increasingly pursuing legal action to seek justice and compensation for what they’ve experienced.

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

Call today for a free consultation or use the confidential chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.

In a decision for the ongoing Uber Sex Assault Mass Tort, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California struck down Uber’s attempt to enforce a non-consolidation clause in its user terms.

This clause aimed to prevent the consolidation of hundreds of sexual assault lawsuits into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The ruling marks a critical point in the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) for Uber Sexual Assault claims, allowing the cases to proceed collectively in federal court.

The Uber Sexual Assault MDL contains over 200 lawsuits filed by passengers who were sexually assaulted by both legitimate and illegitimate Uber drivers.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber failed its duty to protect passengers, misleadingly promoting its service as safe.

The lawsuits were consolidated under the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in October 2023 to streamline proceedings and increase judicial efficiency.

Uber’s legal team argued that the app’s terms include a clause prohibiting users from engaging in “coordinated” legal actions, such as MDLs.

However, Judge Breyer determined that this clause interferes with the judiciary’s procedural ability to manage cases.

The Uber MDL judge emphasized that while terms of use may allow for arbitration clauses and class action waivers, they cannot strip the court of its inherent powers to manage its docket.

The ruling has been hailed as a victory for the plaintiffs, as it upholds the judiciary’s authority and ensures that the plaintiff’s claims will be heard, potentially expediting the legal process and leading to a more thorough examination of the claims.

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

Call today for a free consultation or use the confidential chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.

On March 18, 2024, an initiative petition supported by Uber was filed in Nevada, proposing a significant change to attorney contingency fees in civil litigation.

The petition, if enacted, would restrict attorney fees to no more than 20% of the total recovery amount, starting from January 1, 2027.

This legislative change is set to transform how damages are collected in civil lawsuits throughout the state.

Under the current law in Nevada, contingency fees are not specifically capped outside of medical malpractice cases, which are limited to 35% of any recovery.

The proposed measure will also affect private attorneys contracted by the State of Nevada, whose fees are presently capped at 25% of the total amount recovered.

The petition aims to ensure more substantial compensation flows to plaintiffs rather than legal fees, reflecting a shift towards greater client financial benefits post-litigation.

By supporting a cap on contingency fees, Uber aims to decrease potential legal expenses from civil cases, including those arising from its operations.

Furthermore, by reducing the incentives for attorneys to take on complex or lower-value cases, a cap on contingency fees could limit the legal options available to victims.

This is seen as a way of “silencing” victims by making it harder for them to pursue effective legal action.

This initiative is part of a broader movement to standardize and reduce legal costs associated with civil litigation, potentially setting a precedent for other states.

If approved, this cap on attorney fees could lead to an increased number of civil cases being pursued, as lower fees might encourage more individuals to seek legal redress.

The petition must now gather a sufficient number of signatures from registered voters to be placed on the ballot for a statewide vote.

If successful, Nevada could see these changes implemented within the next few years, significantly altering the landscape of civil litigation fees and their distribution.

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

Call today for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.

According to the most recent filings published by the JPML, there are now 252 cases pending in the Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation.

32 new cases were sent to the MDL in the past month.

The Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit claims that the rideshare company failed to adequately screen drivers and implement safety measures to prevent sexual assaults from happening.

These lawsuits claim that Uber’s negligence has directly contributed to the harm suffered by passengers.

Survivors of sexual assaults involving Uber drivers are increasingly seeking legal recourse to seek justice and compensation for what they’ve experienced.

Contact us today to learn more about the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit and the legal options available to survivors. 

You can also use the chatbot on this page for a free and confidential case evaluation. 

We’re here to help you.

The Uber Sexual Assault litigation continues to unfold, with new developments capturing the attention of both the public and legal communities.

According to the latest JPML filings, the number of Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits pending consolidation has reached 230.

Nine cases were added to the litigation in the month of March.

The rise in legal action can be attributed to increased awareness and support for survivors of these troubling incidents, which have encouraged more individuals to come forward with their experiences.

These cases often involve passengers who were assaulted by Uber drivers, and raise serious questions about the safety measures and background checks implemented by the company to protect its riders.

It is crucial for those affected to know that legal options are available and that you are not alone in pursuing justice.

It’s important to seek the advice of an attorney to understand your rights and explore the possibility of taking legal action. 

Contact us today for a free consultation.

You can also use the confidential chatbot on this page to get in touch with our lawyers today. 

We’re here to help you.

There are 221 Uber Sexaul Assault Lawsuits consolidated into a Multi-district litigation (MDL), a 30 case increase from February.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber failed to take necessary precautions to protect its riders from sexual assault by its drivers.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) continues to monitor the growing number of claims against Uber, indicating a substantial rise in legal action against Uber.

Uber is facing allegations of negligence and failing to ensure the safety of its passengers.

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

For more information, contact TorHoerman Law or use the chatbot on this page for immediate assistance.

Currently, there are a total of 191 cases pending according to the most recent JPML filings.

Multi-District Litigations (MDLs) are legal procedures in the United States designed to handle multiple related civil lawsuits that involve similar issues, facts, or defendants.

When numerous individuals file lawsuits related to a common set of circumstances, such as sexual assaults committed by Uber drivers, these cases can be consolidated into a single federal district court for pretrial proceedings.

MDLs aim to streamline the litigation process by centralizing the discovery process, reducing duplication of efforts, and ensuring consistent rulings on key legal issues.

The Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL 3084) claims that the company was negligent in ensuring the safety of rideshare passengers.

If you or a loved on has been a victim of sexual assault as an Uber rider, you may be eligible to participate in the Uber Sexual Assualt Lawsuit. 

Contact our law firm for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page.