Sexual Abuse
Over the past few years, rideshare giants Uber and Lyft have largely supplanted traditional taxicabs nationwide, providing millions of people with transportation services. However, both Uber and Lyft have confronted an increasing number of accusations and civil lawsuits from rideshare passengers, specifically alleging incidents of sexual assault by drivers. The legal actions assert that Uber, in particular, should bear responsibility for these sexual assaults due to alleged negligence in adequately screening its drivers.
This page will provide the latest news and developments in the Uber driver sex abuse lawsuits, as well as our analysis of the potential settlement value of these cases.
The sexual abuse and assault lawsuits involving Uber drivers have been consolidated into a class action MDL (In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation – MDL No. 3084). Our national mass tort firm is currently accepting new Uber sexual assault cases. If you were assaulted by an Uber driver, contact us today at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us for help online.
Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit News and Updates
Before we get into the substance of the claims in an Uber sexual assault lawsuit, let’s start first with the latest news and updates in the litigation:
October 18, 2024: The court addressed today a subpoena issued to Lyft in the MDL. Lyft has agreed to produce documents from two custodians responsible for communications with Uber and regulators regarding the development of the ISSP.
Two disputes remained: (1) whether Lyft’s production should be delayed until Uber’s documents are reviewed for gaps, and (2) whether Lyft’s costs for compliance should be shifted to the parties. The court declined to delay Lyft’s production, setting a deadline of December 17, 2024. The issue of cost-shifting was deferred until after Lyft’s production is completed.
October 9, 2024: The MDL judge has ruled on Uber’s motions to dismiss certain claims claims under Florida, Illinois, and New York law. The court dismissed most claims under these state laws, including negligent entrustment, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, non-delegable duties, products liability, and injunctive relief.
But, importantly, Uber’s motions were denied for punitive damages across all three states. The court also upheld some vicarious liability and common carrier claims in Florida and Illinois, specifically those occurring outside the timeframes covered by the states’ Transportation Network Company statutes.
Additionally, the court found that Uber could not be held liable for common carrier duties for incidents after the statutes were enacted or before the Illinois statute was repealed in 2024. The court’s ruling significantly narrows the scope of the litigation for claims in these states, allowing only a few specific claims. But you only need one successful claim to win.
October 1, 2024: We saw a huge jump in this MDL last month, with nearly 400 new cases added. Things slowed down a bit in September, however, with just 83 new cases. There are currently 1,346 pending cases in the MDL.
September 23, 2024: New lawsuit continue to be filed in state court in California and in the MDL. Four new lawsuits were filed just today in the MDL.
September 17, 2024: A stipulation and proposed order was submitted to extend the deadline for Uber and its affiliates to produce certain privilege logs. A privilege log is a document that lists withheld materials in a legal case, explaining why they are exempt from disclosure, typically due to attorney-client privilege or work product protections.
Initially, the court ordered Uber to produce documents and related privilege logs by September 15, 2024, for nine custodians. After meeting and discussing, the parties agreed that Uber could have an extension for seven of the nine privilege logs, allowing until September 25, 2024, to complete this requirement. Uber will still submit two privilege logs by the original deadline of September 14 and 15, 2024.
The court approved the stipulation.
September 3, 2024: At the start of August, the Uber driver sexual assault MDL had 387 pending cases. As of today, that number has risen to 1,263 cases. This means the MDL nearly tripled in size, adding almost 900 cases in just 30 days. This is one of the largest percentage increases for an MDL in a single month.
August 15, 2024: Uber convinced the MDL judge to – at least temporarily, as we explain below, narrow the scope of a master complaint involving lawsuits that allege sexual assaults by its drivers. The judge dismissed product liability claims, arguing that the issues—such as inadequate background checks and lack of immediate support during unsafe rides—are operational problems rather than flaws in the app’s design. This legal distinction implies these are service negligence issues, not product defects. So the judge is saying you can sue Uber for that but it is not a product liability claim.
The plaintiffs have the opportunity to revise the master complaint to address the judge’s concerns before the next Case Management Conference on August 29, 2024. This meeting will further discuss the litigation’s status and the upcoming procedural steps. Depending on how the issues are reframed and addressed, it might influence whether more cases are filed in state rather than federal court, which might actually benefit the plaintiffs. Either way, these claims are viable wherever they are filed.
August 8, 2024: A D.C. federal judge ordered the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) to produce documents in response to a subpoena related to its collaboration with Uber Technologies Inc. in developing sexual misconduct and safety protocols. This order is part of the MDL.
The plaintiffs’ sexual assault attorneys in the MDL have requested materials detailing RAINN’s involvement with Uber, asserting these documents are crucial for their case. Despite RAINN’s objections that the subpoena was overly broad and burdensome, the judge emphasized the necessity of resolving discovery disputes without court intervention.
This subpoena is one among many served on non-party entities, prompting U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros, overseeing MDL discovery, to propose transferring such motions to her court for efficiency. However, Judge Reyes declined to quash the subpoena or transfer the dispute, preferring to address the issue immediately.
August 5, 2024: Both the plaintiffs and Uber submitted a joint letter in compliance with the Court’s order regarding discovery deadlines and management. This submission outlines their respective proposals for handling the next round of nonparty subpoena disputes within their ongoing MDL.
The plaintiffs’ proposal focuses on including a lobbying firm, a sexual violence organization, and potentially one to two additional entities that have agreed to transfer jurisdiction or have had disputes moved to the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs’ lawyers really think Ballard Partners is important. Ballard is a lobbying firm that has represented Uber on various regulatory and policy issues, including efforts to classify Uber as a “transportation network company.” This had real implications for regulatory scrutiny and public safety perception. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that discovery from Ballard is necessary due to frustratingly insufficient production by Uber so far.
Additionally, the plaintiffs want to subpoena The Chertoff Group, a security and risk management advisory service that contributed to Uber’s U.S. Safety Report, to access evaluations related to sexual harassment and assault incidents on Uber’s platform. They also mention ongoing efforts to resolve disputes with Nexar, a dash camera company, suggesting a phased approach to briefing these issues.
Uber agrees on the inclusion of three to four subpoenas but is pushing back on the inclusion of The Chertoff Group in this tranche, noting the firm’s different role compared to other sexual violence advocacy organizations. Uber proposes that an entity like RALIANCE or similar organizations be considered instead due to their direct involvement in developing incident categorization systems with Uber.
Both parties propose schedules for submission of briefs, with the plaintiffs suggesting specific dates for completing discussions and submitting briefs, and Uber proposing a sequence where plaintiffs would file their briefs first, followed by non-parties and Uber. Uber also requests an increase in the page limit for briefs to more adequately address the issues at hand.
August 4, 2024: The Uber Technologies Passenger Sexual Assault class action saw a huge jump in active lawsuits from July to August 2024. The number of active cases grew from 321 to 387. That is an increase of 20.56% in a single month.
There is a lot of confidence that the settlement amounts in this litigation will be high, particularly for the strongest claims.
July 31, 2024: Lyft was able to avoid a sexual assault lawsuit filed by an Illinois woman claiming the company failed to protect riders from sexual assaults, as the suit was filed too late. The woman alleged that in 2021 she was sexually assaulted by a Lyft driver after falling asleep in the vehicle. She reported the incident to Lyft, which removed the driver from the platform.
She sued for negligence and misrepresentation, alleging Lyft had long been aware of sexual assaults by drivers but responded inadequately. However, the court dismissed the case, ruling it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. The woman had argued that under Illinois’ discovery rule, she had more time to sue because she wasn’t aware of the foreseeability of the assault. The court disagreed, noting she was aware of the incident when she reported it to Lyft.
The take home message is call a Lyft or Uber sex abuse lawyer as soon as possible to make sure you do not lose your right to bring a claim.
July 12, 2024: In a highly significant ruling earlier this week, the MDL court granted the plaintiffs access to specific documents and data regarding safety incidents, including GPS data and trip details. This information is essential for identifying patterns of sexual assault and misconduct, understanding what Uber knew about these incidents, and evaluating the company’s response.
However, it was not a complete victory. Uber’s sexual abuse lawyers sought access to all 800,000 user reports reviewed by Uber in preparing its safety reports. The court deemed this request too broad, noting that many of these reports were unrelated to sexual misconduct or safety issues. Instead, the court directed Uber to produce documents and data specifically related to incidents of sexual assault and misconduct. While comprehensive access was desired, this decision is a significant step forward.
July 1, 2024: The Uber driver sexual assault class action MDL added 45 new cases during the month of June. That is an increase of 16% since last month and there are now 321 cases pending in the MDL.
June 15, 2024: A woman from Clackamas County, Oregon became one of the more recent victims to file a lawsuit against Uber alleging that she was sexually assaulted by one of its rideshare drivers. According to the complaint, which was filed directly in the Uber driver sex assault MDL, the Uber driver aggressively flirted with her the entire ride. Then when they arrived at her destination, the driver grabbed the plaintiff’s arm when she tried to exit the vehicle and forcefully pulled her back while attempting to kiss her and force himself onto her.
May 29, 2024: There are now 297 lawsuits in the MDL Uber class action lawsuit. Additionally, there are 395 lawsuits pending in California state court under the Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP), which is a procedural mechanism used in California to handle complex litigation involving numerous related cases.
The JCCP functions like an MDL. It allows for coordinated pretrial proceedings to improve efficiency and consistency across these numerous cases, which predominantly involve incidents occurring within the state. This dual-track litigation setup underscores the extensive scope of the legal challenges Uber faces related to passenger sexual assault allegations.
May 21, 2024: A California appeals court dismissed a lawsuit against Lyft Inc., in which a former driver alleged the company was responsible for his stabbing by a passenger because it did not perform background checks on passengers. The court ruled that Lyft has no duty to conduct such checks, deeming them burdensome and contrary to public policy. The court noted that implementing background checks on all passengers would be costly and complex, especially since the number of passengers significantly exceeds the number of drivers.
The court highlighted potential social and privacy issues, including discrimination concerns and the implications for consumer privacy under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. Additionally, it found that the effectiveness of such checks in preventing violent incidents needs to be clarified and questioned whether the attack could have been anticipated or prevented even with background checks. The court affirmed that the plaintiff did not establish that the incident was foreseeable or that a background check would have flagged the attacker as a threat.
Is this an alarming development in rideshare sexual assault cases? The reflex is to say yes, right? But it really is not reasonable to expect Lyft and Uber to do background checks on every single passenger. Making claims that are clearly a reach that distracts the many more viable sexual assault lawsuits in this litigation.
May 1, 2024: During April, 12 new cases were transferred into the Uber passenger sexual assault MDL. There are now 252 total cases pending in that MDL.
April 12, 2024: Uber has introduced a series of new safety features aimed at improving passenger protection, mainly focusing on the safety of young female passengers. These measures were detailed in a press release on April 10. Among the updates is a RideCheck feature that actively monitors rides for any deviations or unexpected stops, alerting passengers to ensure everything is proceeding as expected. A PIN verification system has also been implemented, providing passengers with a four-digit code to confirm their driver’s identity matches the booking made through the app.
Uber has also introduced an audio recording feature, allowing passengers to record their trips. These recordings are securely stored in encrypted files, accessible to Uber only when the passenger files a safety report. Another significant addition is the Share My Trip option, which allows passengers to share their real-time location and trip details with friends or family members.
These updates represent positive steps, showing that Uber is now taking safety seriously. However, it’s difficult not to link these enhancements to the Uber sexual assault lawsuits, which have raised serious safety concerns after years of inadequate measures that put passengers at risk. For victims of Uber sexual assaults, these changes may feel like too little, too late.
March 22, 2024: Upcoming deadlines in the Uber MDL class action:
- February 15, 2024: The deadline for plaintiffs on file as of February 1, 2024, to submit bona fide ride receipts or detailed ride information as per Pretrial Order No. 5.
- Within 14 days of filing, transfer, or removal: For all cases filed, transferred, or removed to the court after February 1, 2024, plaintiffs must submit the required ride receipt or information.
- March 26, 2024: The cutoff date for cases to be filed, transferred, or considered as part of the initial batch for fact sheet completion and document submission. Plaintiffs and Uber Defendants in cases on or before this date must complete and submit their respective fact sheets and produce responsive documents within 60 days after March 26, 2024.
- Within 30 days of the case being filed, removed, or transferred: For cases entering the MDL after March 26, 2024, plaintiffs must complete and submit a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS), and Uber Defendants must complete and submit a Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) along with producing responsive documents, contingent upon the plaintiff serving the required ride receipt or information.
- Within 90 days of receiving supplemental information: If a plaintiff provides supplemental ride information or a ride receipt allowing Uber Defendants to identify a specific trip and/or driver not previously identified, Uber Defendants have 90 days to serve a supplemental DFS.
- March 25, 2024: The deadline for the parties to file a stipulation for limited amendments to the fact sheets or this Pretrial Order, subject to the Court’s approval.
Uber Sex Assault Lawsuits
Uber is a major company generating billions in revenue. Its millions of drivers transport passengers across all 50 states in the U.S. Legally, Uber drivers are classified as independent contractors, not employees.
However, in the past decade, Uber has faced an escalating wave of complaints, public scrutiny, and civil lawsuits concerning incidents of rideshare passengers being detained and sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. As Uber expanded, reports and stories emerged regularly, depicting Uber drivers subjecting passengers to sexual assault. The incidents often follow a similar pattern, involving an Uber driver luring a vulnerable passenger into the vehicle, diverting from the intended destination, and carrying out a sexual assault in a secluded area.
Uber’s own safety and incident reporting data reveal an average of 3,000 to 7,000 reports of alleged sexual assault from Uber passengers annually. The majority of these reports involve allegations of non-consensual sexual touching, while a smaller percentage includes more serious accusations, such as forcible rape. It’s important to note that these numbers are self-reported by Uber and may not accurately represent the true extent of the issue.
Allegations in Sex Assault Lawsuits Against Uber
Uber has recently become a defendant in a growing number of civil lawsuits filed by rideshare passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. These lawsuits assert that Uber was negligent in its failure to adequately screen and conduct background checks on drivers before hiring them.
According to the Uber sexual assault lawsuits, the company prioritized rapid growth over passenger safety. It is claimed that Uber facilitated an easy sign-up process for drivers, utilizing a background-check system through a company called Hirease, Inc., boasting a vetting time of 36 hours. In pursuit of quick approvals, Uber departed from industry standards, foregoing fingerprinting and checks against private databases, including FBI records.
For sure, these shortcuts contributed to Uber’s growth and made them a lot of money. The question Uber sex abuse lawyers are asking is how many women were sexually assaulted as a result of these shortcuts? At one point, Uber was so focused on expansion that it sent cell phones to applicant drivers, enabling them to start driving before Uber’s background check was complete.
The lawsuits further allege that Uber’s executives decided against interviewing or training drivers to ensure they understood their responsibilities and appropriate conduct with passengers. Uber is accused of failing to implement protective policies against sexual assault, such as a zero-tolerance approach to fraternizing or making sexual advances towards passengers, particularly engaging in sexual activity or touching. The lawsuits argue that Uber’s negligence in disregarding these policies and opting for a superficial background check process led to increased rates of sexual assaults by Uber drivers.
Negligence in Driver Screening and Safety Policies
Central to the legal claims is Uber’s alleged negligence in its duty to provide safe rides for passengers. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been pointing to the company’s deliberate decision to avoid industry-standard practices for background checks, such as fingerprinting, which could have flagged potentially dangerous drivers. Uber needed drivers and they needed them fast. So opted for cheaper and faster alternatives, significantly increasing the risk of allowing unsafe individuals alone in a car with a woman.
The lawsuits also highlight Uber’s lack of protective policies to prevent sexual assault, such as prohibiting fraternization between drivers and passengers. While Uber advertises a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct, plaintiffs argue that this policy was rarely enforced and that Uber often ignored or inadequately addressed sexual assault complaints.
Uber is further accused of not training drivers on proper conduct or how to handle potentially dangerous situations, which plaintiffs claim created a permissive environment for sexual violence. This is not plaintiffs’ best claim. You do not educate someone to teach them how to to harass, assault, and rape women. You will not see this claim pursued with much vigor. But the underlying point is you have to screen carefully to make sure you do not have men who will sexually abuse and assault women. That is the bottom line of this litigation.
Uber Sex Assault Class Action
An Uber sexual assault MDL is currently underway, although it is commonly referred to as a class action. While the distinction between the two terms exists, our sexual abuse lawyers use “class action” in line with public understanding. The MDL, or multidistrict litigation, is a legal procedure employed in federal courts to consolidate multiple civil cases sharing common factual issues into a single district court. This consolidation enhances efficiency, reduces costs, and ensures consistent rulings across similar cases, such as those involving Uber sexual assault.
In October 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided to consolidate all pending Uber sexual assault cases in federal courts into a new MDL, assigned to a judge in the Northern District of California. This means that all future federal court Uber sexual assault cases will be automatically transferred into the MDL. The cases within the MDL will undergo a consolidated discovery process, followed by the selection of representative cases for bellwether test trials. The outcomes of these trials are intended to guide settlement negotiations.
For individuals with federal court Uber sexual assault lawsuits in various states, including New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and others, their cases will be transferred to California for consolidated proceedings. If no settlement emerges from the MDL, the cases will return to federal courts in their respective states.
The MDL encompasses incidents where passengers were allegedly victims of sexual assault by Uber drivers. The victims argue that Uber has the means to enhance ride safety but has been slow and inadequate in its response. Criticisms include substandard background checks and failure to remove drivers after sexual assault allegations. Suggestions for improved safety measures involve fingerprint background checks and dashcam recordings for every ride.
This MDL signifies a critical juncture for Uber, emphasizing the urgency and complexity of addressing passenger safety in the rideshare industry. It also marks a significant moment in legal history as the first instance of a federal judge overseeing such a broad range of cases against Uber, aiming to streamline proceedings and bring clarity to numerous individual claims.
How Much Can You Get for an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit?
In mass tort litigation, including the ongoing Uber sexual assault MDL, settlement amounts vary based on the severity of the harm and the strength of the evidence presented in each case. Typically, settlement payouts are structured in tiers, using a points system within the tiers. These lawsuits will likely be categorized for settlement according to factors such as the nature of the alleged assault, the long-term impact on the victim, and the degree of negligence attributed to Uber.
High-Tier Cases
In the highest tier, we can expect cases that involve forcible rape or other forms of violent sexual assault, where there is strong, corroborative evidence such as police reports, medical records, witness statements, or digital evidence from Uber’s app (e.g., GPS tracking, ride history, or complaints about the driver).
These cases are likely to yield the largest settlements, as the physical, emotional, and psychological harm to the victims is substantial. Given the precedents in similar sexual assault mass torts, settlement amounts for high-tier cases could exceed $1 million particularly if the assault results in long-term or permanent trauma, such as PTSD, or if the perpetrator had prior complaints of misconduct that Uber failed to address.
In some cases where the negligence of Uber is especially egregious—such as instances where drivers were retained despite prior complaints or where drivers with known criminal histories were hired—settlements could potentially reach $750,000 to $2 million or more.
Mid-Tier Cases
Mid-tier cases might involve non-consensual sexual touching, inappropriate advances, or situations where the assault did not escalate to rape but still caused significant emotional distress. These cases may involve victims who immediately reported the incident to Uber or law enforcement but may lack the same level of physical evidence as high-tier cases. Victims in this category may have strong testimony and circumstantial evidence, such as ride deviations or concerning driver behavior, but less conclusive proof than in the most severe cases.
For these mid-tier cases, settlements are likely to range between $200,000 and $500,000. Factors that could increase the settlement value include multiple allegations against the same driver or evidence that Uber failed to take proper action in response to earlier complaints. Even though these cases may not involve the extreme physical violence seen in high-tier cases, the emotional and psychological impact on the victims is still profound, warranting significant compensation.
Low-Tier Cases
Low-tier cases might include incidents where the evidence of the assault is weaker, such as situations involving unwelcome advances, inappropriate comments, or suggestive behavior by an Uber driver that, while deeply uncomfortable and traumatizing for the passenger, did not escalate to physical contact. In these cases, the lack of strong evidence or the difficulty in proving the driver’s intent may result in lower settlement amounts.
For these cases, settlement amounts may range from $50,000 to $100,000. While these amounts are lower, they still reflect the serious nature of the misconduct and the violation of the victim’s rights. These cases may also include instances where victims did not report the incident immediately or where there is less documented evidence to support their claims. However, the emotional toll of these experiences is acknowledged in the settlement process, which seeks to provide some form of compensation.
Potential for Outliers and Exceptional Cases
It is important to note that some cases could fall outside these general tiers due to exceptional circumstances. For example, if a survivor is able to show that Uber knew of multiple prior sexual misconduct allegations against a particular driver and failed to act, this could dramatically increase the settlement value, even if the specific incident involved a lesser degree of assault. In such cases, punitive damages aimed at penalizing Uber for gross negligence or recklessness could lead to multi-million-dollar settlements. The reality is Uber will be willing to do anything to avoid letting a case like that go to trial.
Additionally, Uber’s response—or lack thereof—after a reported assault will be a critical factor in determining settlement amounts. If it is shown that Uber systematically ignored complaints, failed to follow up with law enforcement, or allowed drivers with prior complaints to remain on the platform, the company could face significant liability. This could result in higher-tier cases pushing the $1 million payout range or more, especially if a pattern of disregard for passenger safety is established.
Comparison to Other Mass Tort Settlements
Comparing the Uber sexual assault MDL to other mass tort cases, we can get a sense of the potential range for settlements. For instance, settlements in mass torts involving institutional failures, such as clergy sexual abuse cases or cases involving sexual assault at universities, have ranged from $250,000 to several million dollars, depending on the severity and scope of the misconduct.
Moreover, settlement values in Uber’s MDL may be influenced by the sheer volume of cases. With thousands of potential plaintiffs (the litigation has really been grown in second half of 2024), Uber may seek to negotiate a global settlement to avoid lengthy litigation. This could create pressure to offer higher settlements in order to resolve the cases quickly and limit further reputational damage.
Conclusion: Estimated Settlement Ranges
Based on the severity of the allegations and the trends in similar litigation, we can estimate the following settlement ranges for the Uber sexual assault lawsuits:
- High-Tier Cases: $500,000 to $1 million+ (forcible rape or violent assault with strong evidence)
- Mid-Tier Cases: $200,000 to $400,000 (non-consensual sexual touching or lesser assault with moderate evidence)
- Low-Tier Cases: $50,000 to $100,000 (inappropriate advances, comments, or behavior with weaker evidence)
These figures represent educated estimates, as the exact settlement values will depend on the specifics of each case, the evidence presented, and the outcome of the MDL’s bellwether trials.
It’s important to understand that these settlement amounts are only projections based on similar mass tort cases and the specific allegations involved in the Uber sexual assault MDL. It is still early in the litigation and some would argue that it is too early to make these projections. We do it anyway because victims want to know what lawyers think about settlement value. Ultimately, this is a civil lawsuit and a civil lawsuit is about money. So it is reasonable to want to know what settlement payout could be.
Call Us About an Uber Sexual Assault Case
If you were sexually assaulted by an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and participate in any settlement. Our lawyers are handling these lawsuits nationwide. Contact our sexual assault lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation.