helping survivors logo
More than 1,200 sexual assault survivors helped since 2023.
Get Legal Help
More than 1,200 sexual assault survivors helped since 2023.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit: How To File & MDL Updates

If you have a sexual assault claim against Uber, it’s important to understand your rights and legal options for holding the responsible parties accountable. Helping Survivors is here to inform you on when, why, and how to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit. You can also follow along with the latest Uber sexual assault multi-district litigation updates below.

Get Legal Help
helping survivors badge

Have you experienced sexual assault or abuse?

We can help answer your questions and connect you with an attorney if you may have a case.

"*" indicates required fields

Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
kathryn kosmides photo icon

Author: Kathryn Kosmides

Survivor Advocate

Melissa Reitberg photo icon

Reviewed By: Melissa Reitberg

Uber Sexual Assault Attorney

Key Takeaways
  • Since 2017, thousands of survivors have filed Uber sexual assault lawsuits to seek damages for the harm that happened to them, including both drivers and riders who experienced sexual assault, harassment, and kidnapping.
  • Individuals are filing Uber sexual assault lawsuits against the company to seek accountability, justice, and healing. We can connect you with an experienced rideshare sexual assault attorney who can help you understand your rights and options.
  • A majority of all federal rideshare sexual assault lawsuits against Uber have been consolidated into a Multi-District Litigation, or MDL. As of July 2025,  2,359 cases are pending in The Uber Technologies, Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation MDL No. 3084.

Since Uber’s founding in 2009, thousands of individuals have come forward with allegations of sexual assault that occurred while they were using the rideshare company’s services, either as passengers or drivers. After similar cases began to pile up, a panel of judges decided in October 2023 to consolidate federal cases against Uber into a multi-district litigation, or MDL, for pre-trial proceedings to save court resources. The MDL is pending before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California.

Uber Lawsuit Allegations

Most of the cases against Uber in the MDL involve passengers who have experienced sexual assault, harassment, or other harm at the hands of Uber drivers.

  1. Lack of Safety Measures – Survivors allege that Uber is vicariously liable for the actions of its drivers. They further assert that the company was negligent by failing to implement appropriate safety measures to protect passengers.
  2. Breach of Contract – Lawsuit allegations state that Uber’s services aren’t as safe as they claim. The rideshare company has faced extensive criticism for failing to conduct adequate background checks for drivers and not allowing passengers to choose a preferred driver gender.
Overview of the Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Uber MDL Process Explained

In multi-district litigation, many individual cases are consolidated into one court for pre-trial proceedings to ensure the efficient use of court resources and consistency in rulings. 

After pre-trial proceedings are complete, bellwether trials will be held in several select cases to help assess the potential outcomes and facilitate settlement negotiations. 

All pending cases will eventually be transferred back to their home states for individual trials. The Uber MDL has been in the pre-trial phase since late 2023, and the first bellwether trials are set to begin in December 2025.

If you are a survivor of rideshare sexual assault, an experienced attorney can help you understand your rights and legal options, which may include filing a case under the Uber MDL.

Last Date Modified
July 14, 2025
Related Pages

Uber Sexual Assault Litigation - Recent Updates

July 9, 2025: Bellwether Complaints Partially Dismissed

In a 37-page order issued July 8, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer partially granted and partially denied Uber’s April motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ bellwether complaints. The court dismissed several plaintiffs’ fraud and misrepresentation, product liability, and negligence claims, while preserving other fraud, product liability, and vicarious liability claims.

DISMISSED CLAIMS:

  • FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION: Uber’s motion to dismiss the bellwether plaintiffs’ fraud and misrepresentation claims was granted in relation to its “designated driver” marketing. These claims alleged that two Uber ads offering Uber as a safe alternative to drunk driving did not provide information on the risks of driver sexual assault. However, the court sided with Uber that no reasonable consumer would interpret the ads to represent anything about sexual assault.
  • PRODUCT LIABILITY: Several plaintiffs alleged that Uber’s failure to employ “safe ride matching” to block certain high-risk rider-driver pairings was a product defect. However, the court previously held that such allegations were not a product defect, so these claims were dismissed.
  • NEGLIGENCE: Negligence claims against Uber in four bellwether cases were dismissed.

PRESERVED CLAIMS:

  • FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION: Uber’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud and misrepresentation claims was denied in relation to “driver notifications” allegations, which assert that Uber should’ve disclosed reports of prior driver misconduct when notifying users about their drivers.
  • PRODUCT LIABILITY: The plaintiffs’ product liability claims, which are rooted in gender matching or app-based ride recording allegations, are allowed to proceed.
  • VICARIOUS LIABILITY: Several plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claims under Oregon and North Carolina law, which assert that Uber is responsible for the actions of its drivers, were not dismissed.

One bellwether plaintiff, WHB 1876, had their entire amended complaint dismissed in full, so the court ordered the plaintiffs’ attorneys to select a new bellwether case within 14 days. Additionally, Uber must select a replacement case from the existing bellwether pool for Trial Wave 1 within 14 days. Another plaintiff was ordered to submit an amended complaint in support of their negligence claim, while all their other claims were dismissed. The court ordered the parties to file a chart identifying the plaintiffs’ remaining claims by July 23.

July 7, 2025: Numerous Cases Face Dismissal, Uber Objects to Providing Previous Complainants’ Information

Last week, the court considered Uber’s May motion to dismiss nearly 100 cases handled by law firm Levin Simes. Uber requested the dismissal because the plaintiffs in each case failed to provide plaintiff fact sheets. In an order on July 3, the court directed each plaintiff to provide a complete and verified fact sheet within two weeks; otherwise, their claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Additionally, Uber filed a motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s late June decision to allow plaintiffs access to the identities and contact information of previous complainants of misconduct involving some Uber drivers in the MDL. Allowing the plaintiffs’ attorneys to contact previous complainants could help them establish a pattern of negligence and a lack of proper discipline for drivers. Uber said granting this request would “retraumatize” the complainants, and told the court that if the main judge denies its motion for relief, Uber will request information from previous complainants with a stipulation that it disagrees with the Court’s determination.

June 27, 2025: New Bellwether Case Added, Depositions Scheduled, and Previous Complainants’ Identities Revealed

On June 23, the parties in the Uber MDL filed a joint status report including information on depo sessions and the addition of a new Trial Wave 1 bellwether case. As of that date, the plaintiffs have taken 35 depositions of Uber’s current or former employees and scheduled 36 depositions for the five Wave 1 bellwether plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are in the process of scheduling 35 more bellwether-related depositions. Discovery for the new Wave 1 case, WHB 823, is set to be completed by August 8.

At a June 26 discovery status conference, the court addressed disputes regarding whether depositions of certain Uber witnesses should be part of common MDL discovery or case-specific discovery. To avoid repeated depositions, the court suggested a hybrid treatment for witnesses relevant to a subset of cases based on region or city. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request to discover the identities of previous complainants of misconduct involving some of the drivers at issue.

June 18, 2025: Plaintiffs Fight to Keep Bellwether Trials in California; Driver Background Checks Subpoenaed

In a response to Uber’s motion to transfer the bellwether cases back to their home states for trial, the plaintiffs asserted that there is no precedent for enforcing a forum-selection clause that “looks anything like” the one included in Uber’s Terms of Use. After public criticism in 2018, Uber promised passengers that “survivors will be free to choose to resolve their individual claims in the venue they prefer.” According to the plaintiffs, the rideshare company only added the choice of forum section to its terms after realizing that lawsuits against it were likely to be consolidated.

“The Court need not reward Uber’s hypocrisy and gamesmanship,” attorneys for the plaintiffs said in their response. “Forum-selection clauses must be clearly communicated, reflect good faith, avoid overreach, and be reasonable and fundamentally fair. This clause flunks every test.”

Additionally, a magistrate judge ordered two third-party background check services to produce involved Uber drivers’ full background check materials, despite the third parties’ claims that the documents at issue are protected “consumer reports”. Because the main judge on the case had already determined that driver background checks would be highly relevant to the bellwether trials, the court authorized the third parties to produce the background checks.

June 10, 2025: Uber Challenges Bellwether Plaintiffs’ Claims, Fights for Dismissal

In a response to the plaintiffs’ opposition to Uber’s motion to dismiss the Bellwether complaints, Uber argued again that there are “numerous fatal deficiencies” in the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, product liability, negligence, and vicarious liability. Uber asked the court to dismiss all Bellwether complaints for failing to properly state a claim, asserting that multiple plaintiffs have no actionable claims because they allege no physical harm.

June 3, 2025: 30 Cases Dismissed, Social Media Discovery Procedures Finalized

More than a month after plaintiffs’ attorneys for nearly 30 lawsuits in the Uber multi-district litigation withdrew, the court dismissed the cases without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled. The dismissal came after the plaintiffs failed to file notice indicating whether they intend to continue pursuing their actions after their counsel withdrew. Originally, the attorneys for these cases withdrew due to issues contacting the plaintiffs, likely because the cases were filed several years ago. Litigation delays have frustrated some parties.

Additionally, the court made some decisions on discovery requests for the bellwether plaintiffs. The judge asserted that the parties’ “maximalist positions” reflect a “failure to cooperate,” and counsel for Uber and the plaintiffs must now attend a hearing on June 9 to resolve these issues. In a separate order, the court ruled on the social media discovery procedure for the bellwether plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must now turn over their social media history from two years before the date of their assault until the present.

Uber Multi-District Litigation Timeline

May 30, 2025

The court has approved a delayed deposition date for former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, pushing the deposition back to July 3. Additionally, the court resolved a discovery dispute between the parties—Uber had requested the bellwether plaintiffs to produce 10 full years of medical and insurance records, among other records. The court sided with the plaintiffs, adopting a proposed compromise involving significantly fewer records.

May 28, 2025

Uber filed a motion for relief alleging that a Magistrate Judge involved in the MDL was incorrect in allowing the plaintiffs’ requests for some witnesses, including Uber executives, to bring laptops to their depositions to demonstrate the company’s record-keeping systems. While Uber asserted that this practice was “invasive” and would “harass the deponents,” the court rejected the motion for relief one day later, agreeing with the Magistrate Judge’s decision.

May 27, 2025: Uber Requests Bellwether Cases Be Tried in Home States

In a break with the typical MDL process, Uber filed a motion requesting that 13 of the 20 bellwether trials in the MDL be conducted in the states where they originated rather than the Northern District of California, where the cases were consolidated. Uber asserted that the passengers agreed to this forum change by entering the rideshare app’s Terms of Use and that the docket volume in the Northern District of California is too great to host the bellwether trials.Typically, the MDL process involves transferring numerous similar cases to one court for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, then returning the cases to their original courts for trial. However, bellwether trials, which serve as representatives of all cases in the pool and face trial first, are typically held in the same jurisdiction as the MDL.

May 19, 2025: Former Uber CEO’s Deposition Delayed, 99 Cases Up For Dismissal

The court postponed the scheduled deposition of current Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi from May 20 to July 1 in New York City. The court asserted that it would grant no further continuance of this date unless an emergency occurs. Additionally, after expressing a desire to postpone the date for former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s deposition, the parties were ordered to provide a joint statement on their request to push back the May 27 scheduled date.Days earlier, Uber filed two motions to dismiss 99 cases, each represented by Levin Simes, LLP, without prejudice for failure to file plaintiff fact sheets in compliance with a March court order. Uber asserted that the firm missed the April deadline to file fact sheets, and that “dismissal of these… cases is a justified consequence of Plaintiffs’ continued non-compliance.”In response to Uber’s previous motion to dismiss all of the bellwether complaints, the plaintiffs argued they adequately pleaded counts of fraud, product liability, emotional distress, and more. The counsel for the plaintiffs asserted that “in moving to dismiss, Uber applies incorrect legal standards and contorts fact questions into matters of law.” The court has still not ruled on any recent motions to dismiss.

May 2, 2025: First Six Bellwether Trials Selected

After taking suggestions from all parties on which bellwether cases should be tried in the first wave of trials set to begin in December 2025, the court solidified the lineup on May 1. Six cases from California, Texas, Illinois, and Arizona were selected to be the first trials of the MDL. They involve allegations of sexual penetration, kissing of a sexual body part, touching of a sexual body part, and verbal comments. The plaintiffs chose four of the Wave 1 cases, and Uber chose two. Discovery for the first wave of trials is set to end in late September, with the first trial beginning on December 8.

When finalizing the composition of the first trial wave, the court identified six cases in the Uber sexual assault multi-district litigation that will be tried first. Each complaint includes similar counts against Uber, including negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, vicarious liability for drivers’ torts, product liability, and more. The plaintiffs, allegations, and locations of the first wave of bellwether cases are:

  • 24-cv-7940 – California: The plaintiff lives in Austin, Texas, and alleges they were sexually penetrated by an Uber driver in connection with a ride facilitated on the Uber platform in San Jose, California, on August 12, 2022.
  • 24-cv-7821 – California: The plaintiff lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and alleges an Uber driver kissed them on a sexual body part without consent in San Francisco, California, on August 10, 2023.
  • 24-cv-4803 – Texas: The plaintiff lives in Houston, Texas, and alleges an Uber driver touched them on a sexual body part in Harris County, Texas, on October 29, 2021.
  • 24-cv-5230 – Illinois: The plaintiff lives in Jacksonville, Florida, and alleges they were harassed with sexual comments by an Uber driver in Bento County, Missouri, on September 27, 2019.
  • 24-cv-7019 – Arizona: The plaintiff lives in Phoenix, Arizona, and alleges an Uber driver touched them on a sexual body part in Maricopa County, Arizona, on June 28, 2024.
  • 23-cv-6708 – Arizona: The plaintiff lives in Oklahoma and alleges an Uber driver in Arizona raped her on November 15, 2023.

Though the specifics of five of the six wave-one cases have been designated as privileged, meaning they are not publicly available, the sixth includes a full 54-page long-form complaint. Jaylynn Dean, the plaintiff in case 23-cv-6708, said her Uber driver made vulgar comments to her before stopping the vehicle and forcing himself onto her, raping her despite her attempts to fight back. Dean asserts that Uber is vicariously liable for the injuries its drivers inflict on passengers.

“Through its officers, directors, and managing agents, Uber contributed to the attack on plaintiff by abandoning its utmost duty of heightened care toward its passengers, and instead adopting a culture that prized growth above all else, celebrated toxic masculinity, and exploited and endangered women and girls in conscious disregard for their rights and safety,” wrote attorneys for Dean in her complaint.

Dean’s complaint alleges that Uber misled her and the public into believing it was addressing the “deeply rooted issue” of sexual assault on the platform, asserting that Uber has known that drivers were assaulting female passengers since as early as 2014. Rider safety, said attorneys for Dean, was never the company’s top concern.

April 21, 2025: First Bellwether Trial Date Set for December

During a case management conference on April 18, the court set a date for the first wave of bellwether jury trials in the Uber sexual assault MDL. The first trials will begin in San Francisco on December 8, 2025. The court has not yet addressed Uber’s recent motion to dismiss part or all of every bellwether complaint. While the plaintiffs’ attorneys agreed with the court’s decision to try the bellwether cases in waves of three to five at a time, Uber’s counsel disagreed with the trials selected for each wave, asserting that the order was skewed in the plaintiffs’ favor.

April 16, 2025: Uber Files Motion to Dismiss All Bellwether Complaints

On April 15, Uber and its subsidiaries filed an extensive motion to dismiss all or part of every single Bellwether complaint. If the motion is granted, three of the 20 Bellwether complaints would be dismissed entirely, while the others would have some or most of their claims for relief dismissed. Uber asked the court to permanently dismiss claims of fraud, misrepresentation, vicarious liability, product liability, negligent design defects, and more.

Uber asserted in the motion that the court had previously rejected several claims by the Bellwether plaintiffs but had granted them leave to amend their complaints. Still, Uber stated that the amended complaints failed to plausibly allege reliance on safety-related advertising, a connection between their injuries and a defect in the Uber App, and Uber’s knowledge of or response to any driver misconduct. Attorneys for Uber reiterated their doubt that enough evidence was present to make these claims.

April 4, 2025: Uber Executives Must Testify

The court denied Uber’s earlier requests to restrict the depositions of its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Marketing Officer. In an order filed April 3, the court expressed doubts that those executives were uninvolved in high-level corporate decision-making about rider safety. Additionally, the court admonished both the defendants and the plaintiffs for “bad behavior by all involved” in Uber Senior Vice President of Safety and Core Services Gus Fuldner’s deposition. In response, the court laid down ground rules for conduct in further depositions, including limiting Uber’s counsel’s ability to instruct executives not to answer questions.

April 2, 2025: Uber Argues for Individual Bellwether Trials; Plaintiffs Request Consolidation

Uber and the plaintiffs each submitted briefs regarding whether the bellwether cases should be tried individually or consolidated. Bellwether trials are the first trials in multi-district litigation and are often used as tests to determine how juries will respond to evidence and arguments. Uber argued that multi-plaintiff trials would undermine the goals of the bellwether process and “severely prejudice” the company, while the plaintiffs argue that consolidating the first trial to include three or more plaintiffs would be more efficient since the cases are similar.

“[Uber] will argue that each sexual assault is unique—as it did in opposing the formation of the MDL in the first place,” counsel for the plaintiffs wrote in their brief. “But, as a general matter, no one disputes that sexual assaults happen in Uber vehicles, and that those assaults are horrific. The disputed issues here, and the common core of Plaintiffs’ cases-in-chief, go to Uber’s policies and practices.”

On the same day, Uber and the plaintiffs submitted a joint letter regarding their recent deposition of Uber’s Senior Vice President of Safety and Core Services, Gus Fuldner. On March 26-27, counsel for the plaintiffs deposed Fuldner for 14 hours. Days before, the court directed the parties to submit a letter regarding whether Fuldner’s deposition merited a change in the overall schedule and procedure of the remaining Uber executives’ depositions.

Uber has previously raised the so-called “apex” doctrine, which gives high-ranking corporate officials certain special protections from abusive or harassing discovery demands. While the court generally denied issuing a protective order, Uber’s lawyers have sought some limitations on the executives’ upcoming depositions. Uber argued that the executive’s depositions should be significantly shortened and restricted based on the information gathered from Fuldner, while the plaintiffs argued that no change in procedure is necessary.

April 1, 2025: Parties to Submit Bellwether Scheduling/Deposition Protocols

Between March 3 and April 1, 2025, 283 new lawsuits were added to the consolidated Uber sexual assault multi-district litigation, with 1,883 actions now pending. Over the past week, attorneys for Uber and the plaintiffs have debated the privileged status of hundreds of Uber’s internal documents. The court instructed the parties to submit a proposed protocol for scheduling and depositions for bellwether cases by April 9, and a further case management conference is scheduled for April 18.

March 24, 2025

In a joint status report filed on March 24, 2025, plaintiffs in the Uber MDL accused Uber of purposefully confusing and complicating data about the identification of drivers, riders, and trips associated with safety reports. According to court documents, plaintiffs said Uber unnecessarily hashed and re-hashed anonymized data about reports of sexual assault and other misconduct, seemingly to prevent the plaintiffs from tracking specific incidents or drivers throughout the data. In response, Uber’s attorneys asserted that they have produced all the requested documents. Additionally, the court issued an order on March 24, 2025, granting the plaintiffs’ request to depose several top-ranking Uber executives. Plaintiffs have permission to depose the current Uber CEO for four hours, two former CEOs for three hours each, and four other executives for no more than 18 hours total. The court said it was appropriate for high-level executives to be deposed in this case, since the litigation concerns aspects of Uber’s business model that are “plainly the result of high-level executive decisions.”

March 21, 2025

The court ordered the plaintiffs and Uber to work on a system to finally produce all the internal Uber documents necessary to the case, including an inspection of Uber’s Google Drive and other internal systems.

March 10, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Uber’s petition challenging the centralization of sexual assault lawsuits.
Uber claimed that its Terms of Use include a Collective Action Waiver, which prevents plaintiffs from joining coordinated legal actions like an MDL. Uber also argued that the lawsuits involved too many individual issues, such as different state laws and unique factual circumstances, to justify centralization.
The court ruled that the Collective Action Waiver in Uber’s Terms of Use does not override federal law, which allows for MDL centralization.
The court also stated it was within its authority to centralize the cases since they involved common factual questions, such as Uber’s policies on driver background checks, handling of sexual assault complaints, and overall safety measures.

March 1, 2025

38 cases were added to the MDL in February. There are now 1,600 total pending cases in the MDL.

February 2025

Uber Technologies Inc. and Raiser LLC have requested that the judge presiding over the MDL involving sexual assault claims against Uber drivers issue an order requiring 57 plaintiffs to submit plaintiff fact sheets within 14 days. Uber urged Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the cases with prejudice if the plaintiffs fail to comply. The company argued that the plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to address their non-compliance. Additionally, Judge Breyer directed all parties to select 10 cases each to form a pool of 20 potential bellwether cases. These cases will undergo case-specific discovery, with amended complaints due by March 14, 2025, and discovery closing on September 22, 2025.

January 2025

The MDL now includes 1,562 pending cases across 29 states, and the path to the first trial is becoming clearer. By February 14, 2025, each side must select 10 plaintiffs for a bellwether discovery pool of 20 cases. Amended complaints are due by March 14, 2025, with discovery closing on September 22, 2025. The first trial is scheduled for December 8, 2025. While trial outcomes could influence settlement amounts, Uber may pursue a global settlement before any case reaches trial.

December 2024

Nearly 50 new cases were added to the Uber driver sexual assault MDL, a decrease from the 48 new cases reported in the previous month. Plaintiff and defense lawyers submitted a joint report to the MDL judge on ongoing discovery disputes. The plaintiff’s lawyers seek documents on Uber’s customer-targeted marketing, particularly regarding rider safety and driver background checks. Accusing Uber of “delay and obfuscation,” they are moving to compel compliance. Uber argues the request is premature, stating they are still working to produce the relevant documents. Additionally, Judge Breyer reviewed and ruled on many discovery issues, including Uber discovery claims related to business documents.

November 2024

Lyft has been named in the context of the Uber passenger sexual assault MDL, as plaintiff lawyers requested that Lyft disclose the names and details of its employees responsible for communication with Uber regarding the Industry Sharing Safety Program, or ISSP. The ISSP also involves a third-party background check provider that retains information regarding drivers reported for certain safety concerns that are then banned from Uber and Lyft through the ISSP program.

October 2024

There are more than 2,600 cases under the Uber MDL – 1,000  pending lawsuits in the MDL and another 1,600 claims filed in California state court. During a recent status conference, both sides discussed key issues in ongoing Uber sexual assault litigation, including case filings, motions to dismiss, and discovery. Uber is struggling to meet a September discovery deadline, citing the massive volume of documents requested. Plaintiffs seek data from Uber’s Safety Reports on sexual harassment and assault, while the court has limited access to specific reports. Following general discovery, the court may use a bellwether process to assess early trials and how juries might respond to key evidence.

August 2024

Judge Breyer dismissed all Texas state law claims and most claims under California law. However, plaintiffs are allowed to refile amended complaints with more specific allegations. The judge highlighted that the master and short-form complaints lacked individualized details to make claims plausible, noting that specific facts about each assault were needed to show causation.

July 2024

Uber appealed the ruling and requested a pause on all proceedings until the appeal is resolved. However, Judge Breyer has decided that pretrial proceedings will continue during the appeal process. He emphasized that halting the proceedings is unnecessary since discovery and trial preparations are essential regardless of the appeal’s outcome.

May 2024

Judge Breyer denied Uber’s motion to dismiss or transfer the now over 250 combined sexual assault cases under the MDL back to individual U.S. District Courts, despite Uber’s “Non-Consolidation Clause” in their Terms of Service. He ruled that enforcing this clause would hinder the court’s ability to manage the numerous lawsuits filed against Uber.

April 2024

Uber’s lawyers submitted a letter to Judge Breyer indicating that they have filed six motions to dismiss Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits due to the survivors’ alleged failures to state actual claims. Five of the motions filed seek to dismiss claims brought under state-specific laws, including California, Illinois, New York, Florida, and Texas. Judge Breyer has ordered plaintiff lawyers to file response briefs to Uber’s dismissal motions by the end of April.

February 2024

The MDL against Uber has reached a milestone with its 100th lawsuit filed. Initiated in October 2023, the MDL aims to provide a platform for the more than 10,000 Uber passengers who have reported sexual assaults while using the service to seek justice and compensation for the harm they have experienced.

October 2023

The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation consolidated hundreds of sexual assault cases brought against Uber into the “Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Multi-District Litigation.” Uber sought to change the MDL’s name to exclude the term “sexual assault,” claiming it suggested a presumption of guilt, but the Panel chose not to modify the title. The federal Uber sexual assault cases will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California.

Can I File an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit?

If you are a victim of sexual assault or abuse in an Uber, you have the option to file a lawsuit against the company and the perpetrator. This goes beyond reporting to the platform and reporting to law enforcement for criminal justice action. Filing a lawsuit can help prevent future harm and allow survivors to seek accountability, justice, and compensation.

Individuals who have experienced harm in an Uber can:

  • File a Lawsuit Against Uber – You can sue Uber as a company for a failure to adequately protect users from predatory drivers and riders.
  • File a Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against an Uber Driver – You can also choose to sue the driver individually for attempted or actual sexual assault before, during, or after an Uber trip. Pursuing a civil case against the individual perpetrator is a separate action from any lawsuit against Uber, and may not be necessary in some cases of harm.

Most Uber sexual assault lawsuits are filed against the company for the following types of rideshare sexual abuse.

If you were intoxicated, asleep, were under 18 at the time of the incident, or under the influence of drugs or other substances, your ability to consent to any sexual contact is impaired or limited. If you are having trouble remembering what happened, you can still seek assistance from us.

The ability to file a sexual assault lawsuit against Uber or Lyft also depends on the civil statute of limitations in the state where the harm occurred. Even if you believe the statute of limitations for your case may have expired, it’s crucial to speak with an experienced Uber sexual assault lawyer to evaluate all your legal options.

Steps to File an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit

 If you’ve been harmed by an Uber driver, you might be unsure of the best next steps, including how to safeguard your legal rights and options. In general, the steps to file a lawsuit against Uber for sexual assault include:

In general, the steps to file a lawsuit against Uber for sexual assault include:

  • Document the Incident – Write down everything you can remember and take screenshots of any evidence of the ride.
  • Speak with an Attorney – Speak with an experienced Uber sexual assault attorney as soon as possible, as they can help guide you through all of the steps and processes.
  • Review & Sign with a Law Firm – Law firms take these cases on contingency, meaning they are compensated once there is a settlement or you win the case if taken to court. This means it does not cost anything upfront to file a rideshare sexual assault lawsuit.
  • Law Firm Files Claims Against Uber—The steps to file a lawsuit against Uber may vary depending on the state where you reside. The law firm will take on all of this work so you can focus on healing.
  • Respond to Court Appearances & Requests—If you have any required court appearances or filings, your attorney will take care of them, and you will likely not need to attend.
  • Discovery Process – This is the process of gathering evidence and information related to the harm that happened to you and what information Uber does or does not have, such as the driver’s background check results and previous incident reports.
  • Deposition Process – An attorney can also help you through the deposition process, a judicial process where testimony is obtained from individuals involved with a case under oath as part of the discovery process.
  • Settlement Negotiations or Trial Proceedings – Once discovery is complete, both sides will meet to discuss a settlement, or the lawsuit will continue to be litigated in court at a trial by jury.

Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Amounts

There is no set value for a sexual assault lawsuit claim against Uber. The amount of potential compensation from damages and the time it takes to resolve the claims will vary depending on the type of harm you experienced and the facts of the case. It is anticipated, based on similar cases in previous years, that some Uber sexual assault settlements will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Typically, an Uber sexual assault lawsuit seeks damages for:

  • Pain and suffering, emotional distress, and related non-economic damages
  • Compensation for medical bills
  • Compensation for the cost of mental health treatment
  • Compensation for lost wages

A knowledgeable attorney experienced with sexual assault lawsuits against Uber and other personal injury matters, including Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, can estimate the damages based on current and future expenses and impacts on the survivor’s life. They will rely on their knowledge of previous settlements in similar cases involving the company and industry. Many factors influence the value of your case and the final settlement or award amount. To understand the full value of your claim, schedule a free consultation with an attorney.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit FAQs

Individuals who have experienced rideshare sexual assault often have a ton of emotions and questions. It is a very jarring experience that makes anyone who experiences it distraught. We hope this page has helped you understand why survivors file lawsuits against Uber, the claims that can be made within a suit, the process to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit, and why having an experienced rideshare sexual assault attorney on your side is critical.

Below are some of the other questions individuals who have experienced rideshare sexual assault often have. If you have specific questions related to your experience or are seeking to connect with an Uber sexual assault lawyer who can help you, reach out to us at Helping Survivors to get connected today.

Class actions and multi-district litigation are both ways to consolidate similar lawsuits. However, they differ in structure and how cases are managed and tried.

Class action lawsuits involve one single lawsuit brought on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs.

MDLs involve many individual lawsuits consolidated in the same court for pretrial proceedings. Once pretrial proceedings are complete, bellwether trials are held to assess the potential outcomes and facilitate settlement negotiations. MDL cases are then transferred back to their home districts for individual trials. Because MDLs involve multiple trials, they can take longer to resolve than class actions.

In their two U.S. Safety Reports, Uber reported over 10,000 sexual assaults, kidnappings, and deaths between 2018 and 2021. Thousands of survivors have come forward to seek justice and prevent future harm by reporting their assault and filing a claim against Uber.

Before 2018, Uber required customers to pursue sexual assault claims through independent arbitration and mediation rather than in court. Their policies also prevented survivors from speaking about their experiences publicly by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements.

Uber finally ended required mediation and arbitration in 2018 after immense pressure from several large scandals and an open letter penned by 14 victims of sexual assault.

Today, Uber sexual assault survivors can now choose to settle claims through:

  • Mediation: You can attempt to reach a collaborative settlement
  • Arbitration: You can resolve the claim with a trained arbitrator
  • Litigation: You can pursue legal or financial accountability

An experienced lawyer can speak with you to understand and evaluate your case and help you understand your best course of action.

In response to thousands of sexual assault cases against Uber and its drivers, the company has implemented several new safety measures, including requiring drivers to register dashboard cameras. Uber also expanded its safety guidelines to prohibit sexual assault and misconduct and developed a Women’s Safety Forum to inform female users of additional safety features, which include:

  • Phone number anonymization
  • Follow my ride and share my trip
  • RideCheck, a GPS data tracker
  • 24/7 online safety support
  • In-app Emergency Button

For lawsuits against Uber, the length of the legal process can differ greatly, from several months to years, depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

In simpler cases where responsibility is clear, settlements can often be achieved relatively quickly, sometimes within a few months.

However, in more complicated cases involving contested liability, severe injuries, or prolonged negotiations, the settlement timeline can be extended, requiring more time to reach a resolution.

Not every Uber sexual assault lawsuit will be settled—some may go to trial depending on various factors, including Uber and the lawyer’s actions. Additionally, given the ongoing disputes with the Uber Multi-District Litigation, cases may take longer to resolve.

Have you experienced sexual assault in an Uber or Lyft?

We can connect you to a rideshare abuse law firm today.

Get the Help and Healing You Deserve.
helping survivors badge

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits in the News

Over the last few years, individuals who have been sexually assaulted, kidnapped, or abused during Uber rides have filed hundreds of lawsuits against Uber and other rideshare companies. Many of these have made headlines for the egregious allegations within the suits.

Colorado Governor Rejects Rideshare Safety Bill

Colorado Governor Jared Polis vetoed a widely supported rideshare safety bill that aimed to enforce stricter regulations on companies like Uber and Lyft, including tougher driver background checks and allowing riders to pursue legal action for injuries. Polis cited concerns that the bill’s regulations were “unworkable” and could force rideshare companies to leave the state, potentially harming rider safety. Despite amendments to the bill, Polis highlighted privacy conflicts and operational challenges related to mandatory audio-visual recordings.

Supporters criticized the veto as prioritizing industry interests over public safety. Among the critics was Colorado State Representative Jenny Willford, who has personal experience with rideshare assault. In response, Polis directed state agencies to collaborate on improving rideshare safety through audits and stronger rules, urging companies to increase accountability and transparency. The veto has intensified the debate over how best to protect Colorado riders, while survivors of rideshare abuse are encouraged to seek legal support.

Georgia Family Sues Uber After Teen Allegedly Trafficked Following Ride

A Georgia family is suing Uber, alleging a driver transported their 15-year-old daughter to an accused sex trafficker’s home, where she was drugged and assaulted for four days.

The lawsuit states that in November 2024, the teen met 23-year-old Thomas Bonner online. Bonner allegedly arranged for an Uber to pick her up at 1:40 a.m. and take her 30 miles to his Jonesboro home. Security footage captured her getting into the car.

Family attorney Michael Neff argues Uber’s policy prohibits unaccompanied minors but lacks enforcement, saying a simple age check could have prevented the trip. Uber called the case “gut-wrenching” and emphasized its anti-trafficking efforts.

The family hopes the lawsuit will push Uber and other rideshare companies to strengthen the protections for minors.

Uber Driver in Miami Charged with Sexual Battery & Indecent Exposure

An Uber driver in Miami, identified as Yaroslandys Elozegui Romero, has been arrested on charges of sexual battery, battery, and indecent exposure. The incident allegedly occurred when Romero picked up a female passenger, during which he is accused of committing the offenses. Romero appeared in bond court on Monday, March 10, 2025.

Uber Driver in Pennsylvania Charged with Indecent Assault and Harassment

Robert Corcoran, a 61-year-old Uber driver from West Chester, Pennsylvania, has been charged with indecent assault and harassment of a female passenger. While driving, Corcoran purportedly groped the victim’s breast and made lewd comments. Upon reaching her residence, Corcoran allegedly attempted to kiss and hug the victim as she exited the vehicle. Corcoran surrendered to Whitpain Township police on March 6, 2025.

Boston City Councilor Calls For Additional Safety Measures for Rideshare Services

In response to a recent incident involving an Uber driver accused of sexual assault, Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn is advocating for enhanced safety measures for rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft.

His recommendations include requiring drivers to undergo fingerprint-based background checks and registering them with the City of Boston. Massachusetts mandates a two-step background check for rideshare drivers, but Flynn believes these additional measures are necessary to ensure passenger safety.

Massachusetts Uber Driver Facing Sexual Assault Charges

An Uber driver from Chelmsford, Massachusetts, is facing charges of sexual assault from a passenger in 2023. In February 2025, the driver was charged with indecent assault and battery and distribution of obscene material. The accused has since been banned from Uber’s platform.

2025 Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Multi-District Litigation

In October 2023, a notable ruling by a panel of judges led to the consolidation of approximately 80 legal cases into one collective proceeding in a federal court, alongside new cases filed under the MDL. Although each case will proceed to trial in its respective state, all preliminary legal matters will be overseen by Judge Charles Breyer. All existing and new federal cases are set to be filed under the Uber Sexual Assault MDL. As of June 2025, over 2,100 lawsuits have been consolidated under the MDL.

2019 CPUC Lawsuit Against Uber - $9M Settlement

The California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, filed a landmark case against Uber due to concerns over the company’s internal handling of customer-reported sexual assault incidents, rather than reporting them to law enforcement. After negotiations failed, the CPUC ordered Uber to provide detailed information about the assaults, including the names of those involved and witnesses, leading to a $59 million fine when Uber did not comply. Ultimately, Uber settled the case for $9 million.

Over Five Hundred Women Across the U.S. Sue Uber

In July 2022, a large law firm filed an Uber sexual assault lawsuit in a San Francisco court. The lawsuit detailed the claims of 550 women in multiple states who were sexually assaulted, kidnapped, raped, harassed, stalked, falsely imprisoned, or otherwise attacked by Uber drivers with whom they had been matched through the Uber app.

New York Woman Sues Uber

In September 2020, a New York woman filed a civil lawsuit against Uber, claiming the company failed to protect her and other riders against sexual assault, despite a pattern of reported incidents, engaged in deceptive marketing practices, and provided little to no oversight of drivers.

Massachusetts Woman Files Uber Sexual Assault

In July 2020, a Massachusetts woman sued Uber for a 2018 sexual assault. The driver accused of sexual assault was arrested but soon fled the country.

Oregon Woman Sues Uber for More than $1 Million

In January 2020, an Oregon woman sued Uber and one of its drivers for sexual assault. The woman, who was assaulted by the Uber driver in 2018, asked for over one million dollars in damages. The accused driver had previously faced charges related to the assault but was acquitted of these charges in 2019.

Please note: These cases have been filed by various law firms nationwide and not necessarily by firms that Helping Survivors works with directly. By sharing information about previous and active Uber sexual assault lawsuits, we aim to educate and inform the public.

Have you experienced sexual assault or abuse?

We can help answer your questions and connect you with an attorney if you may have a case.

"*" indicates required fields

Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
helping survivors badge
helping survivors logo
Helping Survivors is an organization on a mission to help heal, educate, and empower people who have been impacted by sexual assault and abuse. Do you have specific questions about your experience?
Get in Touch
Connect
Types of Assault
Resources & Support
Stay Connected
Youtube Instagram
Information You Can Trust

Helping Survivors is an organization on a mission to help heal, educate, and empower people who have been impacted by sexual assault and abuse.

All content, links, and information on our site is designed to be as accurate, unbiased, and up-to-date as possible. However, Helping Survivors is not a substitute for professional medical or legal advice and we do not endorse any third-party organizations or individuals unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Helping Survivors partners with nonprofits, law firms, and other organizations. We will not share your information without prior consent and abide by all privacy laws and regulations.

HS logo
Helping Survivors © 2025
Get Legal Help