Uber Sexual Assault

In January, 75 additional cases were filed in the Uber driver sexual abuse MDL, reflecting a sharp rise compared to December, which saw only half as many. The total number of cases in the MDL has reached 1,562, with at least half that figure also pending in California state courts.

As more lawsuits emerge, the pressure on Uber to resolve these claims continues to grow.

From the outset, we have emphasized that the cornerstone of every rideshare sexual assault lawsuit lies in the documentation maintained by these companies. It’s no surprise, then, that legal teams remain in dispute over the extent of discovery concerning Uber’s marketing strategies—particularly its safety-related promotions.

In a joint status report submitted on Wednesday, plaintiffs highlighted that Uber’s extensive marketing campaigns, which present the platform as a safe transportation choice, are fundamental to both their fraud and non-fraud claims. These claims touch on key legal issues such as duty, foreseeability, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs argue that only Uber holds crucial records detailing the reach and impact of its marketing efforts, which are necessary to support their allegations.

Uber, however, continues to resist these demands. The company asserts that fraud-related claims were already dismissed due to insufficient plaintiff-specific allegations regarding marketing reliance. The defense contends that general promotional materials are irrelevant unless a plaintiff can prove they personally saw and relied on specific advertisements. While Uber has agreed to provide a sample communications log for discussion, it argues that much of the broader discovery requests “exceed the boundaries of relevance.”

Several key disputes remain unresolved, including:

• Bloc & Flow Reporting: Uber is still assessing whether its internal marketing system tracks email engagement and whether such reports can be provided.
• Communication Logs: Plaintiffs seek detailed records of marketing messages sent to individual bellwether plaintiffs, but Uber asserts that such records do not exist in the requested format.
• Marketing Document Declaration: Plaintiffs request a sworn statement detailing Uber’s past and present marketing archives, similar to previous court-ordered declarations regarding policy disclosures.

A lawsuit filed today by a San Antonio, Texas, woman accuses Uber of negligence after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a driver using the company’s platform. According to the lawsuit, the incident occurred on February 2, 2023, when the driver engaged in serious sexual misconduct, including indecent exposure, self-gratification, and soliciting oral sex from the passenger.

The Uber multidistrict litigation (MDL) is progressing, with a total of 1,564 cases currently consolidated and 50 new cases added since the last case management conference in December 2024. In addition, 513 related lawsuits are still pending in a California state court. This brings the total number of Uber sexual assault cases to over 2,000.

A status conference is scheduled via Zoom on Friday, where key topics will be discussed. One of the primary agenda items includes an update on the bellwether case selection, with both parties exchanging their choices by February 14, 2025, as specified in PTO #21. Fortunately, the focus remains on the bellwether process rather than filing additional motions to dismiss.

Colorado State Representative Jenny Willford has initiated legal action against Lyft, filing a sexual assault lawsuit in a Colorado state court. She alleges that she was assaulted by a driver who was using another person’s profile—someone with a known criminal record. (We are naming the plaintiff because she did not file the case anonymously, and multiple news outlets have reported on the matter.)

The alleged incident took place in February 2024, during a ride where Willford claims she experienced unwanted physical contact, inappropriate remarks, and a distressing feeling of being trapped. Following her report of the assault, she asserts that Lyft’s only response was to issue a fare refund and prevent her from being paired with that driver in the future.

The lawsuit contends that Lyft’s inadequate background screening enabled an individual with previous criminal charges—such as menacing and child abuse—to continue operating on its platform. The legal complaint, which names both Lyft and Shanu Transportation, Inc., accuses the defendants of negligence, civil fraud, defective product liability, and breaches of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

According to the lawsuit, Willford has experienced ongoing anxiety and a diminished sense of personal security since the incident. The filing also highlights broader concerns regarding Lyft’s handling of sexual assault cases, identity fraud, and unauthorized driver profiles, referencing over 6,000 similar reports. While Uber lawsuits are more commonly seen in such cases, Lyft is also facing multiple sexual misconduct lawsuits across states including California, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.

Today, a federal court rejected Uber’s motion to amend a previous discovery order in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case. Uber had requested the court to establish a firm deadline of November 27, 2023, for the production of custodial documents. The company argued that the existing order, which mandates the continuous production of documents “created through the present and on an ongoing basis,” placed an undue and disproportionate burden on them. Uber further contended that this ongoing requirement violated the proportionality and relevance standards outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Uber has filed a motion requesting that certain internal documents remain confidential, arguing that their public release could harm the company’s competitive position and violate privacy interests. The company’s legal team contends that the documents contain sensitive business plans, privileged communications, and legal strategies, which, if disclosed, would put Uber at a disadvantage. Uber is seeking to prevent the release of these documents, even with redactions.

However, the distinction must be made between genuinely confidential business information and material that may simply be embarrassing if exposed.

Lawyers are in disagreement over deadlines related to privilege log disputes and document production. Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s privilege logs, which include thousands of entries, are overly broad and wrongly classify business communications as privileged. They suspect Uber is shielding non-privileged documents by simply copying lawyers on them. In response, Plaintiffs proposed a revised deposition schedule to allow more time for challenging these designations. Uber, however, contends that most of its designations are valid and argues that depositions should proceed without delay. The parties remain at an impasse, with Plaintiffs seeking more flexibility and Uber pushing for coordination with California state court proceedings.

Uber has begun testing video recording during rides in select cities, including Washington, D.C., allowing drivers to use front-facing cameras to record their trips. Currently in the pilot phase and not widely available, this feature complements the company’s existing audio recording option. Both video and audio recordings are encrypted and can only be accessed if a driver or rider submits a safety report.

While this initiative isn’t a perfect solution, it’s a step in the right direction—one that is long overdue. Such measures could have helped protect many women who have been victims of sexual assault and rape by Uber drivers.