Lawsuit Information Center
Uber is facing one of the largest waves of passenger sexual assault lawsuits in U.S. history. Survivors across the country allege that Uber drivers sexually assaulted them and that the company is legally responsible because it failed to screen drivers properly, ignored prior complaints, and did not implement basic safety measures.
These claims are now consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) in the Northern District of California. As of October 2025, more than 2,700 plaintiffs in 30 states have joined the MDL, with this number expected to continue rising throughout 2025.
The first MDL trial is set for December 8, 2025. Our lawyers believe these are exceptionally strong cases. The evidence points to a pattern: repeated warnings about dangerous drivers, no action from Uber, and preventable assaults that followed. In the courtroom, that is the kind of timeline juries understand and respond to. It is also the kind of fact pattern that can lead to substantial Uber sexual assault settlement amounts.
On this page, we track the latest developments in the Uber passenger sexual assault MDL, including bellwether trial updates, key court rulings, and our view of potential Uber settlement values.
We are actively accepting new Uber sexual assault cases and talking to survivors nationwide every day. If you were assaulted by an Uber driver, contact us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
Uber Compensation Claim Table of Contents
Uber Sex Assault Litigation Updates
As Uber sexual assault litigation continues to evolve, the landscape is constantly shifting. Discovery battles, bellwether case selection, and court rulings on Uber’s marketing and safety policies are shaping the trajectory of these claims. Our law firm strongly believes in these cases, and we expect Uber to come to its senses sooner rather than later and offer victims the settlement compensation they deserve, before we ever have to go to trial.
Our lawyers remain committed to providing the latest developments and insights, ensuring you stay informed on critical updates, legal strategies, and potential settlement outcomes.
So below we break down the latest court filings, discovery disputes, and trial preparations, so you know exactly where this litigation stands.
Uber Sex Abuse MDL Case Count
November 4, 2025
As of the start of November there are 2,783 pending cases in the Uber driver sex abuse MDL.
Uber Jury Struggled Not With Negligence but Causation
October 3, 2025
Over two days of deliberations, the jury signaled its uncertainty by asking the judge to clarify what it means for something to be a “substantial factor” in causing harm. The judge, drawing from the Judicial Council of California’s Civil Jury Instructions, explained that the plaintiff needed to prove her injuries would not have happened without Uber’s conduct.
The request made clear that jurors were hung up on causation, meaning whether the harm she suffered could be tied directly to Uber. That hesitation is unlikely to carry the same weight in stronger cases involving more severe and clearly connected abuse to the victim’s trauma.
Uber Verdict
October 1, 2025
A jury concluded that Uber had been negligent in connection with a 2016 sexual assault by one of its drivers against an 18-year-old student. But the jury also found that Uber’s negligence was not a “substantial factor” in causing the harm. That technical distinction spared the company from being held liable for damages.
It is hard not to feel bad for the plaintiff. But for the litigation, the key takeaway is that the jury thinks Uber was negligent. The jury found that Uber was negligent, but still let the company off the hook because it decided the failures were not the direct cause of the assault.
Uber MDL Hearing Tomorrow
September 29, 2025
Tomorrow, the court will hold a discovery hearing in the Uber sexual assault MDL. The court will address ongoing disputes over document production, deposition scheduling, redacted mental health records, and questions about attorney access to protected materials from related litigation.
Of course, all the energy in this litigation is currently focused on the trial in California, with everyone waiting to see if the jury returns with a verdict today. (Update: no verdict.)
California Uber Jury is Out
September 26, 2025
The jury now has the case. In closing arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney said Uber prioritized rapid growth over rider safety and resisted measures such as mandatory dashcams and stronger monitoring, then asked the jury for $21.8 million (and punitive damages on top of that).
The jury begins deliberation on Monday.
We will let you know when we get a verdict.
Congress Looks into Uber Driver Sexual Abuse
September 25, 2025
A House oversight subcommittee has launched an inquiry into Uber’s handling of sexual assault and misconduct cases on its ride-sharing platform. The investigation follows a New York Times report revealing that such incidents occur tens of thousands of times annually, far more than Uber has previously disclosed.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, IT, and Government Innovation, sent a letter to Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, questioning how the company identifies, responds to, and reports these incidents. Mace emphasized that the scale of the problem represents a persistent safety hazard for riders and underscored the need for stronger safety tools and protections to prevent sexual assault and misconduct on the platform.
New York Times Uber Document Leak
September 24, 2025
Uber’s latest motion in the California coordinated sexual assault lawsuits involves an apparent leak of sealed records to The New York Times. The company has asked Judge Ethan Schulman to require every plaintiff’s lawyer to certify they had no role in the disclosure, stressing that protective orders entered in both the state and federal proceedings prohibit the sharing of such materials.
Look, if those orders were violated, the breach undermines the integrity of the court. The person who leaked it should be punished accordingly. You cannot choose which rules to follow, even if you find them unreasonable.
At the same time, courts in mass torts now impose a thicket of confidentiality orders, often reflexively, sweeping up discovery that has real public value. These cases involve not trade secrets but allegations of systemic corporate misconduct and failures of safety. This is precisely the kind of information women getting into Ubers have a right to know. When judges wall off too much of the record, they tilt the balance toward secrecy and away from any real accountability, treating discovery as if it were private property rather than evidence of how these companies operate.
So both things can be true at once. Whoever violated the protective order should face consequences, because rules are rules. But the proliferation of blanket confidentiality orders has gone too far. They deprive the public of facts necessary to evaluate whether institutions like Uber are fulfilling their obligations to protect riders, and they erode trust in a system that already struggles with legitimacy. The courts should punish leaks while also rethinking why so much information is sealed in the first place.
MDL Bellwethers
September 22, 2025
Let’s change the subject for a moment from the California trial to talk about the MDL, where most Uber lawsuits are housed. The Uber MDL judge has ordered two bellwether cases transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. The transfer was made after consultation with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the Administrative Office’s Committee on Assignments, and it was carried out under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Uber’s Terms of Use. Judge Breyer explained that both cases remain part of Trial Wave 1 and under his supervision, with the transfer intended to generate North Carolina action numbers that will allow him to preside over the jury trials in that district.
The first federal bellwether is still scheduled for January 7, 2026, in the Northern District of California, with additional sequencing of trials yet to be announced. While the verdicts in these bellwether cases will not, of course, bind the thousands of other lawsuits in the MDL, they will serve as critical tests of how these cases will play with jurors, and that will shape Uber settlement amounts in any final resolution.
Meanwhile, in the California trial, Uber’s lawyers are leaning heavily on psychiatric testimony to argue that the plaintiff’s post-traumatic stress disorder was not caused by the sexual assault in question, but rather by a lifetime of prior trauma.
Two psychiatrists told jurors that the young woman had a long history of childhood abuse, head injuries, and other destabilizing events that met the criteria for PTSD before she ever stepped into the Uber. This tactic reframes the case away from Uber’s conduct and toward the plaintiff’s personal history.
But the strategy carries a ton of risk. By centering their defense on the idea that her suffering stems from earlier abuse, the jury might see this as blaming the victim instead of addressing their own systemic safety failures. Juries often resent this kind of argument, and it can backfire by reinforcing the narrative that Uber knew it would have vulnerable passengers and had an obligation to protect them.
Uber does not have a lot to offer in its defense. Closing arguments are expected to be presented this week, possibly as early as Thursday.
Uber’s Statistics Should Not Make Anyone Feel Better
September 21, 2025
In the ongoing California state court Uber sexual assault trial, the plaintiff has rested her case. So it is Uber’s turn to put on evidence.
The company’s statistics expert, Victoria Stodden, testified that around 70% of Uber’s sexual misconduct reports involved non-assaultive behavior, such as leering, comments, and gestures, rather than physical assault. It is hard to imagine a jury processing that testimony and thinking, “Boy, that makes me feel a lot better.”
Stodden does agree that the number of annual reports of sexual assaults from Uber drivers is in the thousands every year, which seems like the more salient point.
Asking for a Female Uber Driver
September 18, 2025
The Uber trial is now focusing on Uber’s leadership’s postponement of a program that would allow women riders to match with women drivers, despite the company’s safety team pushing the idea.
Executives cited legal exposure under discrimination laws. But what they were really worried about was signaling that the platform is unsafe for women. The jury saw internal materials showing that serious sexual assault reports are roughly four times higher when women riders are paired with male drivers. It was doable. Uber approved a U.S. pilot in June 2024 and rolled it out in August in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit. Lyft launched a version of this feature in 2023.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers are making the simple case that it was a corporate choice to manage legal optics rather than reduce a known risk. The jurors will see more as we go on executive communications, safety proposals, and the timing of product decisions that were focused on profits rather than safety.
Uber Lawsuit from Texas
September 17, 2025
In a new suit filed today, a woman alleges she was sexually assaulted by her Uber driver on March 15, 2025, in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas.
The filing occurs as the first coordinated trial in San Francisco continues, highlighting the same issues now being played out before a jury: corporate notice, product design choices, and what constitutes reasonable safety on a rideshare platform. These safety issues are not old news. They remain a real problem in 2025, as this case illustrates.
Uber Trial Continues
September 15, 2025
The California state court trial continues, with jurors hearing evidence that highlights how the company prioritized growth over safety. Former Uber executives and staff testified that by 2016, the company was aware of reputational concerns around passenger safety, but its business model limited the safety training and oversight it imposed. Internal documents described Uber’s rapid expansion as creating “unique challenges” to addressing sexual assault risks, and witnesses acknowledged that safety policies like community guidelines were rolled out in ways that left significant gaps.
Uber’s Head of Global Safety Testifies
September 12, 2025
Jurors in California heard testimony from Uber’s former head of global safety, who argued that during his tenure, the company tried to balance passenger safety with its drive for rapid growth.
He was confronted with internal company emails that showed engineers and staff had raised concerns as early as 2014 about the need for stronger safety features, including ride-sharing trip recordings, rider ETA sharing, and dashcam requirements. Some employees warned Uber was investing heavily in expansion while moving “slow” on its core promise of safety. He also had to answer for emails suggesting that Uber’s hesitation to adopt costly protections was due to fear that they might trigger regulation.
Trashing Rape Victims
September 11, 2025
The trial judge blocked the plaintiff’s attorney from presenting evidence that an Uber communications executive had once joked in a Slack message about “trashing rape victims” during conversations with a reporter.
Maybe it was just a joke, who knows? But the jury is smart enough to make that call for themselves. Keeping it out only shields Uber from having to explain conduct that goes directly to its corporate culture and credibility.
Uber Sex Abuse Trial
September 10, 2025
A first-of-its-kind bellwether trial against Uber opened in San Francisco Superior Court, setting the tone for coordinated proceedings that include hundreds of sexual assault claims.
This Uber assault lawsuit centers on an alleged 2019 assault of an 18-year-old college student headed to the San Jose airport. According to the complaint, the driver directed her to sit in the front because the trunk was broken, pulled off route, turned off the app, kissed and groped her, restrained her by her hair through the headrest, and forced her hand onto his genitals before completing the trip. She reported what happened to the police six days later.
Jurors heard a simple theme from the plaintiff’s side: the company prized growth over rider safety and kept the public in the dark about the true scale of sexual misconduct on its platform. All our lawsuits say Uber’s public safety reports counted only a handful of categories and left out many others, and that internal data show tens of thousands of sexual violence reports per year when all categories are included.
Uber countered that assaults are exceedingly rare compared with the more than a billion annual trips in recent years and pointed to background checks and product features as evidence that the platform is “exceptionally safe.” Plaintiffs countered that key measures, such as mandatory dash cameras and stronger verification, were avoided to keep drivers on the road, and that the safety tools Uber did add shifted responsibility onto riders.
Beyond this single case, the stakes are broader. The proceeding will test whether a jury credits agrees with us that Uber underreported incidents and refused feasible safeguards, issues that go to notice, corporate priorities, and the duty to warn. With more than 00 California cases still pending in state coordination and over 2,500 in the MDL, this first trial is a proving ground for the evidence that will drive Uber settlement amounts and future trials across the docket.
Uber Hearing Last Week
September 2, 2025
In a hearing last week, the MDL judge made several key points that indicate the lawsuit’s progress and highlight areas of tension. Most notably, Uber tried to get the court to crack down on how certain confidential materials were being handled, but the judge seemed skeptical that this was the right forum for that fight. She’s holding off on a decision and may kick the issue over to a related state court proceeding. The court does not appear willing to micromanage turf battles unless absolutely necessary.
On the discovery front, Uber may soon be ordered to turn over more data tied to a key dataset known as “Flack,” which could be critical for plaintiffs building their claims. The court also plans to rule on allegations that one of the plaintiff firms may have violated discovery rules, which is a serious issue for them but a non-issue in the litigation.
The judge made it clear that while formal deadlines for evidence production are important, she understands that new information can justify new requests, especially as the case nears the end of the major discovery phase. Everyone’s being urged to keep talking and cooperate as the countdown to trial grows shorter.
Florida Uber Sex Abuse Lawsuit
September 1, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed today, a woman from Yulee, Nassau County, Florida, has joined the Uber MDL.
The complaint alleges that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her during a ride arranged through the Uber platform on May 29, 2024, while traveling from Jacksonville Beach, Florida, to her home in Yulee.
Why do we provide these “new lawsuit” updates? We provide these updates to remind us all that this litigation is not theoretical. Real women are being harmed. Each new filing represents a personal story of trauma and a demand for justice. By highlighting the human impact behind the legal claims, our lawyers are trying to ensure the focus remains on the survivors at the heart of this litigation.
MORE Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Updates 👈
New York Uber Lawsuit
August 24, 2025
In a new lawsuit filed on Friday, a woman from Yonkers, New York, filed suit against Uber and Rasier in the Uber MDL.
The complaint alleges that she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a ride in the Bronx, New York, on September 1, 2022. The plaintiff was the account holder who requested the ride via Uber’s platform.
First Uber Assault Bellwether Trial Set for December
August 14, 2025
The first bellwether trial in the Uber passenger sexual assault MDL is set for December 8, 2025, and both sides agreed on the starting point: Dean v. Uber.
Dean is an Arizona woman who alleges she was raped by an Uber driver after the company had already received multiple complaints about him, including reports of lewd comments and sexual touching. She says Uber never warned her about the driver and never took him off the road before the assault happened.
The second case in the lineup will be a North Carolina matter from a plaintiff identified as WHB 823. This was one of the defense’s selections and is ready for trial because fact discovery is already complete. The rest of the Wave 1 schedule is still being hashed out, with Judge Charles Breyer expected to decide soon.
Judge Breyer has also ordered both sides to begin picking five additional cases for a second wave of trials, with a joint proposal due later this month. If Dean’s case resolves before December, another Wave 1 trial will step in.
Dean’s case could have an outsized impact on the entire MDL. The allegations form a simple but damning timeline: prior complaints about a driver, no action taken, and then a serious assault. Juries tend to lock in on that kind of sequence. A strong verdict here would not just be about Dean… it could shape Uber sexual assault settlement values across the board (assuming Uber is foolish enough to let a case go to trial before making every possible effort at settlement).
New York Times Uber Article
August 6, 2025
The New York Times today published a devastating expose on Uber’s handling of sexual assault that could just as easily serve as the plaintiffs’ opening statement in court.
From 2017 to 2022, Uber received more than 400,000 reports of sexual assault or misconduct in the United States. That breaks down to roughly one incident every eight minutes. Internally, the company studied the problem for years, developed tools that could have made rides safer, and even tested algorithms that predicted high-risk matches between drivers and passengers. But time and again, Uber chose not to implement those safeguards if they threatened its bottom line.
Court documents and employee interviews show that Uber deprioritized mandatory video recording, female passenger pairing, and other proven safety measures in favor of protecting its gig economy model and minimizing legal exposure. Victims in multiple cases were assaulted by drivers with prior complaints, while Uber’s own systems flagged route deviations and sent unanswered safety check-ins.
In one case, a trip that should have lasted 22 minutes ended five hours later at a motel. Uber had been pinging the rider throughout the detour but took no meaningful action.
The story paints a picture of a company that viewed safety as a branding problem, not a moral obligation. Internal documents openly discussed setting a tolerable risk threshold. Safety features were filtered through the lens of litigation avoidance, not passenger protection. The result was predictable harm, including repeated assaults by known offenders, underreporting by traumatized riders, and a mounting pile of lawsuits. In the words of one internal Uber report, the question now is not just what happened, but whether any of the company’s decisions are defensible.
Which Trial Goes First
July 28, 2025
Judge Breyer held a Case Management Conference in the Uber sexual assault MDL. The Court extended the deadline for parties to submit a letter brief on the proposed order of bellwether trials to August 12, and required that counsel also state their position on whether trials should be held in different judicial districts. The next case management conference is scheduled for August 22, with a joint case management statement due August 20.
The selection and sequence of bellwether trials are crucial because early verdicts, if there are verdicts before a global settlement, shape settlement leverage, reveal strengths or weaknesses in the evidence, and establish settlement amount benchmarks. Trying strong plaintiff cases first can apply pressure on the defense to settle, while defense-favorable cases up front could deflate momentum and reduce average per person Uber settlement values. So the stakes of these procedural nuances are high.
Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Prospects
July 23, 2025
We believe these Uber sex abuse cases, both in MDL No. 3084 and in California state court, are heading toward significant settlements. These are not abstract claims. They are deeply personal, often violent events that strike a nerve with jurors. When a company as large as Uber builds its business by putting strangers in cars together, it inherits a responsibility it now understands it cannot sidestep.
Juries will not be confused about what is at stake. Uber moved fast, scaled aggressively, and left basic safety behind. Background checks, complaint follow-ups, in-app safeguards… none of it was prioritized the way user growth was. That is a tough story to defend when survivors come forward with clear, repeated warnings that were ignored.
There is no way to separate individual assaults from Uber’s systemic failures. These were not one-off tragedies. They were foreseeable, preventable, and fueled by corporate decisions made at scale. That kind of pattern gets traction in front of a jury. And Uber knows it.
So it is fair to expect high-dollar settlements. In addition to the merits of the cases, trials attract media coverage, raise investor concerns, and expose companies to competitive vulnerability. Uber keeps a tight eye on all three.
The plaintiffs in these cases have endured life-changing trauma. Their claims deserve serious resolution. Uber has the money to pay.
Uber Gets Some Claims Dismissed
July 9, 2025
Uber won a narrow ruling before the first bellwether trial. One of the twenty bellwether cases was dismissed and some claims were trimmed. The court rejected a theory that ads like “Do not drink and drive” or “Stay safe tonight” were affirmative fraud.
The core survives. Plaintiffs can still argue that Uber hid what mattered most. The fraud by omission theory remains in play. That means the question is not whether a slogan was catchy. It is whether Uber failed to disclose past driver misconduct and real platform risks.
The signal is clear. Safety marketing and corporate spin do not end the inquiry. When a company controls the data and the warnings, judges look at what riders were not told.
This is classic platform math. Growth and convenience create powerful incentives to downplay outliers, even when those outliers are assaults. The law asks a simpler question. If riders had the missing facts, would they have made the same choices?
Bottom line. The MDL is still moving toward trial. Uber did not shut the door. The pressure now shifts to discovery, expert work, and settlement posture, where omissions and internal emails often matter more than taglines.
New San Francisco Uber Lawsuit
June 18, 2025
Eight women from across California, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Marin, Riverside, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Yuba Counties, filed suit against Uber Technologies, Inc., and its affiliated companies, as part of the ongoing Uber rideshare litigation in the Superior Court of San Francisco.
The plaintiffs allege they were sexually assaulted, harassed, or otherwise attacked by Uber drivers during rides arranged through the Uber App. They claim Uber knew, as early as 2014, that its drivers were perpetrating sexual assaults against female passengers but failed to take meaningful action to prevent these attacks. The complaint asserts that Uber prioritized aggressive growth over rider safety, allowing under-vetted and unmonitored drivers to continue operating under its platform despite repeated allegations of misconduct.
The lawsuit heavily critiques Uber’s corporate culture under its former and current leadership, citing internal policies, public misrepresentations about safety, and Uber’s resistance to implementing basic safeguards, such as biometric background checks, in-vehicle cameras, or a feature that prioritizes female drivers. It alleges that both former CEO Travis Kalanick and current CEO Dara Khosrowshahi were aware of the dangers posed by Uber drivers and chose to ignore them, continuing to place female passengers at risk.
Uber Driver Background Checks
June 5, 2025
Plaintiffs have issued subpoenas to Checkr and Accurate Background seeking background check records for the drivers accused of sexual assault. Both companies have refused to produce these records without a court order, citing requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This makes you wonder what they might be hiding.
Plaintiffs are requesting that the judge set a firm deadline for the parties to either file a joint stipulation or, if no agreement can be reached, allow plaintiffs to file a motion for the necessary order. These background checks are a huge part of establishing that Uber overlooked prior warnings or red flags in its driver-screening process and failed to act on known risks.
Uber Settlement Master Appointed
June 2, 2025
The Honorable Gail Andler has been appointed as the Settlement Master in the Uber sexual assault litigation, and meetings with the parties are currently underway. While the Uber settlement process is still in its early stages, the initiation of these discussions indicates that Uber may be considering a broader resolution strategy to address the growing number of claims. The involvement of a Settlement Master signals a significant step toward potential global settlement negotiations, ultimately bringing victims the justice they deserve.
Uber Keeps Pushing Nonsense Forum Clause
May 20, 2025
Uber has filed a motion to transfer 13 of the 20 bellwether cases out of the Northern District of California, invoking a forum-selection clause embedded in its terms of use. This would shift the trials to states like Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
The company argues that each plaintiff agreed to adjudicate personal injury claims exclusively in the state or federal court where the incident occurred, and that federal law strongly favors enforcement of such clauses absent extraordinary circumstances. According to Uber, no such circumstances exist here.
But Uber’s position is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of multidistrict litigation and the structure of bellwether trials. This MDL was created because the allegations are systemic and center on Uber’s nationwide failure to implement meaningful safety protections despite knowing for years that its platform exposed passengers to sexual violence. Trying these bellwethers in a centralized forum is essential to evaluating those broader liability questions. Fragmenting the litigation into scattered district courts undermines the entire MDL process, delaying resolution and eroding judicial efficiency.
Uber Sexual Assault MDL Sees Record Growth as Settlement Pressure Mounts
April 1, 2025: March brought a wave of momentum to the Uber sexual assault litigation. A staggering 283 new cases were added to the MDL—up from just 36 in February—bringing the total to 1,883. This is the highest monthly case volume we have seen. The sheer number of new filings is precisely the kind of pressure that accelerates global settlement talks. Uber knows the risk of allowing even one of these cases to go before a jury. With bellwether cases already taking shape, we expect Uber to come to the table with serious settlement offers sooner rather than later. It is extremely unlikely they would let a strong case go to trial.
MDL Versus Class Action Lawsuit
February 10, 2025: Many people searching for information on the Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit are unaware that these cases are actually part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) rather than a traditional class action lawsuit. In a class action, all plaintiffs are grouped into a single lawsuit, and any settlement or verdict is divided among all members. But as we explain more fully below, the Uber sexual assault MDL (MDL No. 3084) consolidates individual lawsuits into one court for pretrial proceedings, allowing each case to be handled separately based on its unique facts.
This means that, unlike a class action lawsuit in which all plaintiffs receive the same outcome, Uber sexual assault victims in the MDL can seek individual settlements or take their cases to trial. The Uber sexual assault lawsuit MDL provides a more tailored approach for victims, ensuring that those with severe claims have a chance at higher compensation rather than being bound by a uniform payout structure.
While an Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit does not technically exist, the MDL functions similarly by streamlining legal proceedings, improving efficiency, and pressuring Uber to negotiate settlements. Plaintiffs in the MDL are still able to argue their cases independently, meaning some could receive larger settlements or jury awards depending on the strength of their claims.
Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Prospects
January 6, 2025: Uber driver assault lawsuits in MDL No. 3084 and in California state court are likely to have high settlement payouts. First, these cases often involve horrific and deeply personal trauma. Juries and courts tend to view such claims with compassion and a desire to hold parties accountable. There are numerous guideposts for settlements like this, and they all point to seven-figure settlements for serious cases. Uber’s role as a major corporation with a massive global presence only amplifies the stakes. When a company’s business model involves putting strangers in close quarters, any failure to ensure safety can be seen as a significant lapse.
That’s not something jurors or corporate attorneys take lightly. The narrative that Uber just wanted to get more and more drivers on the road… well, there is already a movie out there that pushes that premise. It is not a hard sell. Another reason is the optics. Uber markets itself as a safe, convenient transportation solution, but when incidents like these occur, it can shatter public trust.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys will highlight every opportunity Uber missed to prevent these assaults: background checks, safety features, and failure to respond to earlier complaints. If Uber’s negligence appears systemic, it sets the stage for not just payouts but major reputational damage—and Uber knows it. Settling for significant amounts can sometimes seem cheaper than taking the risk of a trial and the PR nightmare that comes with it.
Significant verdicts against Uber will knock them back in the eyes of the public and give legs to their competitors, who have struggled to keep up with Uber. When you add it all up—severe harm to victims, glaring safety lapses, and a giant corporation with deep pockets—you can see why seven-figure settlements are a safe bet. Victims in these cases have life-altering injuries, and juries are often willing to award significant amounts to help them rebuild their lives. Uber, on the other hand, has the resources to pay and the motivation to avoid more headlines. Expect these settlements to be significant.
Where These Cases Are Coming From
January 5, 2025
Last week saw a notable uptick in the number of new Uber passenger lawsuits filed in the MDL, with a striking pattern emerging: a disproportionate number of these lawsuits originate from California, Georgia, Ohio, New York, and Illinois. At first glance, this concentration might seem logical, given that these are among the most populous states with substantial urban centers and heavy rideshare usage. Cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, New York City, and Cleveland serve as hubs for rideshare activity, naturally increasing the volume of incidents involving rideshare platforms.
However, the sheer volume of cases from these states cannot be entirely attributed to population density or rideshare activity alone. What sets these jurisdictions apart is the aggressive legal advertising campaigns aimed at raising awareness among potential plaintiffs.
Internal Documents Reveal Uber’s “Safety Assurance” Strategies
October 15, 2024
One of the things Uber sex abuse lawyers are learning is that Uber was aware of significant safety risks and potential passenger harm from gaps in its driver screening processes. Internal communications outline “safety assurance” strategies aimed at minimizing public perception of these risks, while actual enhancements in background checks and monitoring were delayed or deprioritized. Plaintiffs argue that these documents demonstrate Uber’s pattern of minimizing driver-related safety risks for financial gain, bolstering their claims of negligence and responsibility.
Some of the things they should have been doing, they are doing now. In response to ongoing litigation and mounting safety concerns, Uber implemented several new safety features, including RideCheck (to monitor deviations during rides), a PIN verification system, and encrypted audio recording of trips. It is hard to imagine these are not a part of Uber’s response to the sexual assault lawsuits, which have spotlighted serious gaps—to put in generously—in their safety protocols.
Front-Facing Cameras
September 18, 2024
Uber has started testing video recording during rides in select cities, allowing drivers to use front-facing cameras to record their trips. The latest new city is Washington, D.C. While this feature is still in a pilot phase and not widely available, it complements their existing audio recording option. Both video and audio recordings are encrypted and can only be accessed if the driver or rider submits a safety report.
Is this the solution that solves everything? Of course not. But efforts like this are long overdue and would have protected a lot of women who have been sexually assaulted and raped by Uber drivers
Uber Has 21 Categories of Sexual Misconduct by Drivers
July 19, 2024
Ten days ago, the magistrate judge ordered Uber to produce data and documents related to alleged incidents of sexual assault and misconduct from 2017 to 2020. These incidents served as the basis for Uber’s 2019 and 2022 Safety Reports, which only covered the five most serious categories of sexual misconduct identified by Uber out of twenty-one. If that sentence reads crazy to you, that is because it is.
The court agreed, rejecting the argument that reports from the other sixteen categories were unreliable and should not be subject to discovery. Uber indicated it would provide PDF printouts of each report, while Plaintiffs requested data exports from Uber’s JIRA, Bliss, and Zendesk databases.
The magistrate judge granted Plaintiffs’ request for information about all fields in these databases and their decoders, with a deadline for Uber to comply by today.
Uber Sexual Assaults
Uber has become a major company with billions in revenue. Uber drivers transport millions of passengers every year in all 50 states in the U.S. Uber drivers are technically not employees but rather independent contractors.
Over the last decade, Uber has been facing a steadily growing tide of complaints, public scrutiny, and civil lawsuits involving Uber drivers detaining and sexually assaulting their rideshare passengers. Ever since Uber started getting really big, complaints and stories have regularly surfaced about Uber drivers subjecting their passengers to sexual assault. The incidents often follow a similar pattern in which an Uber driver picks up a vulnerable passenger in the vehicle. Instead of taking them to their destination, take them to a secluded area and sexually assault them in the car.
According to Uber’s own safety and incident reporting data, Uber receives an average of 3,000 to 7,000 reports of alleged sexual assault from Uber passengers each year. The majority of these involve allegations of non-consensual sexual touching. But a smaller percentage of the incidents involve much more severe allegations, including forcible rape. Of course, these are just the numbers self-reported by Uber, and they probably do not reflect the true level.
Allegations in Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Uber is a defendant in a growing number of civil lawsuits filed by rideshare passengers who claim that an Uber driver sexually assaulted them. The lawsuits accuse Uber of failing to properly screen and perform background checks on Uber drivers before hiring them.
Growth Before Safety
Plaintiffs in the Uber assault lawsuit argue that the company’s push for rapid expansion came at the expense of passenger safety. They point to a driver onboarding process built for speed, with background checks that prioritized quick approvals over thorough vetting, allowing unsafe individuals onto the platform. We are seeing these themes play out in the September 2025 bellwether trial, where testimony and documents describe how convenience and growth took precedence over risk mitigation.
Uber marketed itself as a transportation provider offering “a ride you can trust,” while internal awareness of serious safety concerns dates back to 2014. Plaintiffs argue that this branding misled riders who relied on the company’s assurances, despite accumulating reports of incidents. The record referenced in court suggests leadership knew the safety messaging outpaced the protections actually in place, which has become a core issue across Uber sexual assault cases.
Another dimension emerging in the litigation is Uber’s internal handling of safety concerns. Former employees have testified that while the company introduced community guidelines and later published sexual assault statistics, these measures often came after sustained public pressure.
So, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Uber’s actions were driven more by reputation management than by a genuine commitment to rider safety (a theme that is being hit hard by plaintiffs in the California state court trial that is ongoing at the time of this writing). They highlight the lack of mandatory driver training and the limited accountability that comes with classifying drivers as independent contractors. In future trials, juries may need to decide whether Uber’s safety efforts were genuine or simply reactive PR strategies meant to protect the brand rather than the passengers.
Background Checks
For instance, Uber initially claimed to offer top-tier background checks and charged a “Safe Ride Fee” suggesting enhanced safety measures, though the fee was not allocated for safety but added to profits.
Uber used a company called Hirease, Inc. to do its background checks. Hirease brags that it can vet drivers within 36 hours. To have such a short turnaround, Uber disregarded industry standards used by other taxi companies and livery services.
For example, it abandoned fingerprinting and ran applicant drivers against private databases, such as FBI records. These shortcuts led to growth for Uber. But it put women at risk. At one point, Uber was so fixated on growth that it began mailing cell phones to applicant drivers so they could begin driving before Uber’s cursory and ineffective background check was even complete.
By contrast, taxi drivers in many cities are required to undergo fingerprint-based background checks through government databases, complete driver training, and sometimes participate in in-person interviews. These are the safeguards that Uber sidestepped in the name of speed and scale.
The lawsuits also allege that executives at Uber decided not to interview drivers or train drivers to ensure Uber’s drivers understood their responsibilities and what was appropriate and inappropriate when interacting with passengers.
Nothing to Protect Women from Sexual Assault
The lawsuits against Uber claim that the company failed to implement essential safety measures to protect passengers from sexual assault. Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s refusal to enforce a zero-tolerance policy concerning inappropriate behavior, including making sexual advances or engaging in sexual activity with passengers, amounted to gross negligence. This includes allowing drivers to fraternize with passengers and engage in behaviors that could lead to assault, which plaintiffs believe could have been easily addressed with stricter company policies.
Plaintiffs contend Uber relied on name-and-SSN background checks instead of fingerprint-based screening long used in the taxi industry, and that this lighter process allowed some drivers with disqualifying criminal histories to slip through. They argue the combination of inadequate vetting and weak internal safety policies created a foreseeable risk of rider assaults. The through-line of the claims is simple: Uber prioritized rapid growth over passenger safety, and that corporate choice is a proximate cause of the harms at issue.
Uber Sexual Assault Class Action
There is an Uber sexual assault class action lawsuit in the sense most people use that phrase, but technically it is a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL). In October 2023, the JPML centralized Uber sex abuse lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The Uber sexual assault MDL consolidates discovery and motions, then uses bellwether test trials to value claims and drive an Uber sexual assault settlement. New federal Uber sexual assault cases filed nationwide are transferred into this MDL. If no global resolution is reached, cases are remanded to the courts of the parties’ home states for trial.
There is also a parallel California state coordination in San Francisco Superior Court, where coordinated Uber sexual assault cases are moving toward their own bellwether trials. Together, the federal MDL and the California proceeding increase pressure for a global settlement that could resolve hundreds of Uber sexual assault and Uber sex abuse claims. The first Uber lawsuit to go to trial will be in California.
The lawsuits allege inadequate background checks, failure to remove drivers after credible complaints, and weak safety policies. Rideshare sexual assault attorneys seek accountability and concrete reforms, including fingerprint-based screening, greater driver oversight, and wider adoption of dashcams.
How to Determine Settlement Compensation or Jury Awards in Sexual Assault Lawsuits Against Uber
Determining settlement compensation and jury payouts in Uber sexual assault lawsuits involves a variety of variables, and the variables have different weights.
- Severity of the Assault: The nature and severity of the sexual assault play a crucial role. More severe or violent assaults often result in higher settlements or awards. There are Uber rape cases and Uber sexual harassment cases. The settlement compensation for the latter, all things being equal, will be lower.
- Physical Injuries: The extent and nature of any physical injuries sustained by the victim can significantly impact the amount. As you would expect, more severe physical injuries typically lead to higher compensation. That said, some of the most serious rideshare sexual assault lawsuits have no physical injury.
- Emotional and Psychological Trauma: Sexual assault often results in long-lasting emotional and psychological harm. The severity of this trauma and its impact on the victim’s life are critical factors.
- Medical and Therapy Costs: The cost of medical treatment and psychological counseling required as a result of the assault is usually recoverable. This includes both past and future expected costs. Are these costs necessary to bring a viable claim? Of course not.
- Punitive Damages: Our lawyers talk more about this below. In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded to punish egregious conduct and deter similar acts in the future. The likelihood and amount of punitive damages depend on the defendant’s behavior.
- Defendant’s Ability to Pay: In most sex abuse lawsuits, the first question is whether the defendant can pay a settlement or judgment. That is not a problem here. They have, of course, endless money for settlements and verdicts.
- Publicity and Reputational Considerations: Uber goes to great lengths to avoid negative publicity in high-profile cases. Uber does not want to try cases; it wants iron-tight confidentiality clauses when it settles them.
- Age and Vulnerability of the Victim: The victim’s age and any vulnerabilities may be considered, especially in cases involving children or individuals with disabilities. You will see below a rideshare lawsuit involving an 11-year-old girl. Of course, that drives settlement compensation.
- Case Strength and Evidence: You must be able to present a strong case at trial. The strength of the case, including the availability and quality of evidence, will impact not only the likelihood of winning at trial but also the amount of a settlement or award. What makes for strong evidence in a sexual assault lawsuit? A credible plaintiff. That alone is often enough.
Settlement Amounts for Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Most mass tort MDLs eventually get resolved in a global settlement deal in which the defendant pays a large sum of money to resolve all pending cases. Individual cases are then ranked into tiers based on a points system based on various factors such as the strength of evidence and the severity of the sexual assault. Cases in the highest tiers get bigger settlement payouts than those in the lower tiers.
Our lawyers think that the settlement tier values for Uber sexual assault cases could be in the range of $300,000 to $800,000. But we also expect settlements that go past $1 million. And cases in the highest tiers will be those involving forcible rape, with strong evidence, that could go into the millions. Lower-tier cases will be those involving lesser degrees of sexual assault. Any eventual Uber misconduct settlement will likely be in the billions in terms of total compensation paid out to victims.
In 2025, many lawyers in this litigation believe we are close to the end, and a settlement is on the horizon. If you ask these lawyers for a guess, you will get a wide range of numbers. So if you want to call our estimated average Uber sexual assault settlement a guess, that would not be unfair. But our lawyers are really bullish on this litigation, and we think people want to know what lawyers predict regarding settlement payouts, so we provide that information here.
Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Settlement Prediction Chart
| Tier | Case Characteristics | Estimated Settlement Range |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Forcible rape with strong evidence, minor or vulnerable plaintiff, severe trauma | $1.5M – $3M |
| Tier 2 | Non-consensual sexual assault with corroboration, long-term psychological harm | $800K – $1.5M |
| Tier 3 | Unwanted sexual contact or attempted assault, therapy required | $500K – $800K |
| Tier 4 | Sexual harassment or groping, minimal evidence, or delayed reporting | $300K – $500K |
| Tier 5 | Low-evidence cases or unclear liability, no physical contact | $150K – $300K |
Note: Final values depend on evidence strength, plaintiff credibility, and Uber’s strategic interest in avoiding publicity. A global Uber misconduct settlement may exceed billions in total compensation.
Sexual Assault Verdicts and Settlements
Below are summaries of settlements and verdicts in sexual assault cases involving situations similar to Uber driver sexual assaults. What our lawyers are trying to do here is give you a flavor of how similar sex abuse lawsuits play out.
Obviously, there are limits, and how instructive a scattering of jury payouts and settlement amounts in sexual assault cases is to understanding appropriate compensation. This is one tool of many to better understand how to put a settlement compensation amount on a sexual assault lawsuit against Uber.
- $130,000 Verdict (Oregon): The plaintiff was a front-seat passenger in a taxi cab driven by the defendant’s driver. The plaintiff contended that he driver rubbed her leg, groped her breast, grabbed her hand, placed it on his groin, and tried to kiss her without her consent. The event was captured with black-and-white still images from the taxi cab. The defendant admitted liability, and the only issue at trial was damages. Our Uber sex assault lawyers think the exact same case would get a higher settlement amount in the MDL.
- $9,000,000 Settlement (Pennsylvania): A man – an evil man – orchestrated a meeting with an 11-year-old via Instagram. He used Lyft to transport the girl to a Days Inn hotel, where he sexually assaulted her. The girl’s rideshare sexual assault attorneys sued Lyft and, later, the Days Inn because it did not take sufficient actions to prevent the incident. The lawsuit, filed by the girl and her mother, accused Lyft of failing to enforce its policy against drivers transporting unaccompanied minors, as Lyft drivers transported the girl to meet the assailant. Lyft and two Days Inn hotels agreed to a $9 million settlement payout to settle their sexual assault lawsuit.
- $400,000 Settlement (Virginia): An unemployed singer and actress in her early 30s allegedly was raped by the male co-defendant taxi driver. The plaintiff claimed posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the alleged assault. The co-defendant offered to drive the plaintiff to a hospital emergency room with an injured friend and subsequently engaged in sexual intercourse in the taxi. The plaintiff contended that the co-defendant raped her. The defendants contended that the intercourse was voluntary, and the cab company contended that the co-defendant was not on duty.
- $620,000 Settlement (California): The plaintiff was a mentally disabled woman in her 30s who relied on cab service to get around. The defendant was her regular cab driver, and he sexually assaulted her numerous times. The plaintiff had repeatedly asked the disability cab service for a different driver, but nothing was done. The driver allegedly fondled her breasts and genitals by means of force and deceit. The plaintiff said she did not consent to the touching. The plaintiff also said that the defendant would force her to sit beside him and would drive to an alley behind her home, lock the doors, restrain her, and sexually assault her.
Punitive Damages May Drive Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Payouts
Every Uber rideshare sexual assault lawsuit will allege that the company has been aware at least since 2014 of ongoing issues with sexual predators among its drivers assaulting passengers. Despite numerous passenger complaints, police investigations, and legal actions related to driver misconduct, Uber failed to take adequate safety measures to protect its passengers. Uber’s executives consciously chose not to enforce stringent background checks for drivers.
Why? These suits allege that the company put women’s safety on the back burner to satisfy its passion for rapid expansion and profit maximization. To expand, you need drivers and lots of them. This decision to prioritize financial growth over passenger safety led to the neglect of implementing crucial safety precautions.
Uber could have done the right thing and put in safety measures, including thorough background checks, biometric fingerprinting, job interviews, electronic monitoring systems, and strict policies against driver misconduct. Why not?
Again, these precautions were allegedly deemed costly and potentially harmful to Uber’s reputation. Consequently, under the direction of its executive officers, Uber opted to disregard these essential safety measures, thereby increasing the risk of assault, rape, kidnapping, and exploitation for passengers. So this lawsuit will continue to push the argument that Uber’s game plan prioritized cost and image over implementing robust safety protocols, demonstrating a reckless disregard for passenger well-being.
Not in every jurisdiction, but in many, these allegations will allow attorneys for sexual assault victims to submit punitive damages to a jury. Punitive damages are financial penalties imposed on a defendant in a lawsuit intended to punish particularly harmful behavior and deter similar misconduct in the future. Unlike compensatory damages, which aim to compensate the victim for their loss, punitive damages are awarded when the defendant’s actions are deemed especially egregious or recklessly negligent.
Our attorneys think juries will be primed to award significant punitive damages in Uber driver assault cases where a defendant’s failure to protect women’s safety is found to be egregiously negligent or indicative of a disregard for the well-being of others.
These substantial financial penalties are imposed to punish the defendant for their neglect and serve as a strong deterrent against similar neglectful behavior. Uber knows this, and this risk will increase settlement amounts for every rideshare sexual assault lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits
Has Uber faced lawsuits related to sexual assault?
How many Uber sexual assault cases have been reported?
What legal action has been taken against Uber?
What safety measures has Uber implemented in response to sexual assault cases?
Uber has introduced several safety features in response to growing legal and public pressure, including:
– RideCheck (monitors unusual ride activity)
– PIN verification (ensures passengers enter the correct car)
– In-app emergency button (contacts 911 with GPS location)
– Encrypted audio recording (available in select locations)
– Stronger driver screening processes, including real-time background checks
Despite these changes, which are productive changes, Uber sex abuse lawsuits argue that these measures are still too little and implemented too late, and that serious gaps remain in Uber’s driver vetting process.
What is the Uber sexual assault MDL?
How much are Uber sexual assault settlements worth?
We talk about expected rideshare sexual assault settlements in much greater detail abovle.
There is no fixed settlement amount, but legal experts predict that Uber sexual assault lawsuit settlements could range from $300,000 to $2 million per Uber lawsuit, depending on:
– The severity of the assault
– Whether the driver had a history of misconduct
– The strength of the evidence linking Uber’s negligence to the attack
– State-specific legal factors (including the availability of punitive damages)
Are there similar lawsuits against Lyft?
Yes, Lyft has also faced rideshare sexual assault lawsuits, similar to the ongoing litigation against Uber. Plaintiffs argue that both companies failed to implement necessary safety measures to protect passengers from driver misconduct, despite being aware of the risks. These lawsuits claim that Lyft, like Uber, prioritized growth and profits over passenger safety, failing to conduct adequate background checks, properly monitor drivers, or respond effectively to reports of sexual assault. We think Lyft felt like it had to cut corners to keep up with Uber.
A few years ago, Lyft released its first-ever safety report, revealing over 4,000 sexual assault incidents between 2017 and 2019. The report acknowledged a wide range of misconduct, from non-consensual touching to rape, highlighting the widespread nature of the issue within the rideshare industry. Lyft has introduced certain safety features, such as continuous background checks and in-app emergency assistance. But these measures are still insufficient. These have been knee-jerk reactive changes rather than genuinely preventative.
The lawsuits against Lyft allege that the company failed to warn riders about the known dangers, allowed drivers with histories of misconduct to remain on the platform, and did not implement effective safety policies to prevent assaults. Like Uber, Lyft has attempted to shift blame onto individual drivers rather than acknowledging systemic failures. As litigation continues, rideshare companies face increasing legal pressure to take responsibility and compensate survivors for the harm they have endured.
What is the status of Uber’s bellwether trials?
Why doesn’t Uber just settle all of these sexual assault suits at once right now?
Uber is a multi-billion-dollar corporation with more than enough money to resolve every sexual assault lawsuit it faces without any financial strain. So why has it not done so? The answer is simple. Uber wants to settle for the lowest amount possible.
Uber’s legal strategy relies on delay. Its attorneys are using discovery fights, privilege logs, and procedural motions to slow the process and weaken cases before they ever reach trial. If they can get claims dismissed or minimized, they gain leverage at the settlement table. Uber is not operating from a position of strength. The company is trying to bluff with a weak hand.
But time is not on Uber’s side. The company is trying to avoid early jury verdicts that could set the bar for future settlements. If a jury returns a significant award in one of the first bellwether trials, it will raise the expectations of every other plaintiff in this litigation. Delays may buy Uber a few more months, but they will not change the fundamental risk. Once trial dates arrive, Uber will face real pressure to settle on a global scale.
What Types of Uber Sex Abuse Claims Are Your Lawyers Reviewing?
Our lawyers are looking at rideshare-related lawsuits where it can be established that a victim has suffered sexual assault by a rideshare driver, with the incident occurring either during the trip or within a week of the trip.
Critical factors include whether the assault involved:
– Physical touching
– Indecent exposure
– Kidnapping/physical detainment
The claim’s strength is bolstered if the victim maintains contact with the person who ordered the ride or possesses proof of the ride, which helps establish the connection between the assault and the rideshare service.
Contact an Uber Sexual Assault Lawyer Today
Our national mass tort lawyers are currently investigating Uber sexual assault cases for placement in the MDL. If an Uber driver sexually assaulted you, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and participate in any settlement. Contact our sexual assault lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation.