Rideshare Lawsuit Updates & News (2025)

Uber has filed a motion to keep specific internal documents confidential, arguing that public access would harm its competitive edge and infringe on privacy. The company contends that the documents include sensitive business plans, privileged communications, and legal strategies, which could put it at a disadvantage if disclosed. Uber is resisting any release, even with redactions, distinguishing between proprietary secrets and potentially embarrassing information.

In a recent case management meeting, several important deadlines were established. The tentative list for bellwether cases is due by June 1, 2025, suggesting a possible start for the first bellwether trial in 2026. Motion deadlines include a motion to dismiss by December 2, 2024, with responses by December 13 and replies by December 20. Meanwhile, a related Uber assault trial may begin in state court as early as next summer.

In the Uber sexual assault MDL involving over 1,400 claims across 29 states, key issues include:

• Deadline for New Cases: Uber seeks a filing deadline to streamline discovery, while plaintiffs argue it’s too early given potential new cases.
• Dismissal and Venue Changes: Uber wants to dismiss less detailed claims and transfer cases outside California based on incident locations, but plaintiffs suggest waiting for more discovery.
• Discovery Coordination: Document exchanges and depositions are underway, aiming to avoid duplication across cases.
• Trial Scheduling: Plaintiffs push for early trial dates with sample cases; Uber prefers a delay.
• Settlement Oversight: Both parties support a Special Settlement Master and have proposed candidates.

The Uber driver sexual assault MDL grew by 65 cases in October, bringing the total to 1,411, a slight decrease from September’s 83-case increase. A similar number of cases are also pending in California state court, where plaintiffs can file due to Uber’s California residency. With no clear consensus among attorneys on the ideal venue, cases continue to be filed in both federal and state courts.

Plaintiffs' attorneys and Uber disagree on contacting former Uber employees during the investigation. Plaintiffs assert they are acting ethically and will avoid contacting former in-house counsel or anyone represented by Uber’s legal team. Uber argues this could breach attorney-client privilege or NDAs, as some ex-employees are represented or may soon be. Uber proposes requiring pre-clearance for these contacts, though ABA guidelines generally allow contact with unrepresented former employees if privileged information is protected. Uber’s refusal to specify which employees had privileged access complicates its position.

Plaintiffs are seeking records from Ballard Partners to support claims that Uber’s lobbying influenced legislation to avoid strict safety regulations. They argue that these records are key to showing how Uber shaped laws in its favor while downplaying safety risks to passengers. The records could reveal Uber’s awareness of these risks and its efforts to present a misleading image of rider safety to protect its business interests. Plaintiffs assert that this evidence is crucial to proving Uber prioritized its own interests over passenger safety.

This week’s discovery conference with Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros centered on disputes over Uber's document production and privilege logs. Uber will validate its document review after processing data from 20 custodians, as per the ESI Order. A key issue remains the plaintiffs' request for Uber to audit its production to ensure the inclusion of hyperlinked files and metadata.

Judge Cisneros ruled that Uber doesn’t need to disclose employee background checks or compensation unless plaintiffs show a specific need. The parties are extending discovery deadlines while addressing issues out of court. Meanwhile, 83 new cases were added to the Uber driver sexual assault MDL, bringing the total to 1,346.

The 9th Circuit has ruled that Uber must exercise reasonable care when matching drivers with riders, establishing a "special relationship" under Washington state law. This decision, made in a wrongful death case involving an Uber driver killed in a carjacking, revives the lawsuit after a lower court dismissed it, ruling that Uber had no duty to protect the driver.

The appellate court disagreed, stating that Uber's control over the matching process and its safety claims created a duty of care, noting that violent incidents were foreseeable. Although the ruling is unreported and not precedent, it may influence other cases, particularly involving safety issues and sexual abuse claims against Uber.

The joint status conference statement for tomorrow addresses several crucial topics:

• Case Filings: There are currently over 1,000 cases pending in the MDL and 1,650 in California state court.
• Motions: Recent legal developments include the Ninth Circuit granting Uber the right to appeal a denial order concerning their Terms of Use. Oral arguments are scheduled for October, following detailed discussions in the June 26 update.
• Proposals Post-Motions to Dismiss: The parties are debating how to amend complaints, particularly for claims requiring specific allegations, such as fraud and product liability. Uber and the plaintiffs’ attorneys disagree on the scope and timing of these amendments.
• Discovery: Multiple disputes remain unresolved, with a discovery status conference set to take place shortly after this case management conference.
• Settlement and Case Management: Discussions include selecting a Special Settlement Master and scheduling the next case management conference.

The parties are at odds over the strategy for managing the MDL. Plaintiffs suggest a targeted re-pleading approach to address the court-identified deficiencies, while Uber advocates for a broader strategy, seeking a comprehensive resolution across all claims within the MDL.

Uber has succeeded in persuading the MDL judge to temporarily narrow the scope of a master complaint involving hundreds of lawsuits alleging sexual assaults by its drivers. The judge dismissed product liability claims under California and Texas law, ruling that the issues raised, such as inadequate background checks and lack of immediate help during unsafe rides, pertain more to Uber's business practices than to defects in the app's design.

The court emphasized that failing to provide safe services doesn't necessarily indicate a defective app, framing the argument as one of negligence rather than product liability. Additionally, the judge pointed out that the master complaint did not sufficiently link the absence of certain app features to any specific sexual assaults.

While this ruling applies to California and Texas law, it may not directly impact cases in other states. Importantly, the plaintiffs still have a viable cause of action that allows the case to proceed. They can also amend the master complaint to address the judge's concerns.

The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for August 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., where the court and parties will review the schedule for submitting and contesting any amended documents. Depending on how the complaint is reframed, some claims might shift to state courts, which could change the trajectory of these lawsuits.

Court Intervenes in Deposition Dispute

A federal magistrate judge has issued a ruling to resolve a standoff between plaintiffs and Uber regarding deposition protocols in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault MDL.

Key Points of the Ruling:

• Deposition Cap: A "soft cap" of 45 depositions was imposed, rejecting Uber's proposed limit of 30.
• Deposition Length: Standard deposition limits of 7 hours were extended under specific circumstances.
• Document Authenticity: A 30-day objection period for deposition exhibit authenticity was established.
• Plaintiff-Specific Depositions: The court deferred a decision, favoring plaintiffs' approach for now.

The ruling aims to streamline the discovery process and allow for more comprehensive fact-finding while balancing the interests of both parties.

A significant increase in active cases has been reported in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault MDL. The number of active lawsuits jumped from 321 in July to 387 in August 2024, marking a substantial 20.56% growth in a single month.

A magistrate judge has scheduled a Thursday hearing to address deposition protocols and a clawback dispute in the federal MDL class action lawsuit. Parties are to prepare for questions on:

• Potential time limits on depositions
• Scope and number of witnesses required
• Optimal timing for determining the number of depositions

The court will also consider a protocol for handling authentication and business record disputes.

A magistrate judge ordered Uber to release data and documents on sexual assault and misconduct incidents from 2017 to 2020. Uber's reports covered the five most serious of twenty-one categories, but the court dismissed Uber's claim that data on the other sixteen categories was unreliable. The judge required Uber to provide information from their JIRA, Bliss, and Zendesk databases by today.

For tomorrow's status conference, the magistrate judge has set a tentative July 31, 2024 deadline for Uber to produce data and documents related to sexual assault and misconduct incidents, emphasizing that redactions for relevance are disfavored in the Northern District of California.

Key points:

• Third-Party Subpoenas: Discussion on resolving disputes over subpoenas and the court's authority over nonparty requests for relief outside the district.
• Negotiations and Search Terms: Update on ongoing negotiations between parties regarding search terms and potential disputes needing court intervention.
• Plaintiff Coordination: MDL and JCCP plaintiffs are identifying 46 of 55 custodians. The court expects an update on this progress and preliminary discussions on potential disputes.

The court granted plaintiffs access to specific documents and data on safety incidents, including GPS data and trip details. This will help identify patterns of sexual assault and misconduct, assess Uber's awareness, and evaluate the company's response.

However, the court denied the broader request for all 800,000 user reports reviewed by Uber, finding it overly broad and mostly unrelated to sexual misconduct or safety issues. Uber must produce documents and data specifically related to sexual assault and misconduct incidents.

As of April 2024, 12 additional cases have been incorporated into the multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving Uber, bringing the total to 252 pending sexual assault claims in federal court.

In the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) regarding sexual assault claims against Uber, a critical discovery issue has emerged concerning electronic documents. The plaintiffs are grappling with documents provided by Uber, which include links that only direct to the most current versions of the linked information, rather than historical versions that may contain crucial edits or comments. These past versions could potentially reveal what Uber knew about the assault cases and when.

The plaintiffs have requested that the court mandate the creation of an automated system to retrieve all versions of these documents. Uber opposes this, citing the complexity and time consumption such a process would entail. The defense argues that not only is the task technically feasible, but it would also be efficient in ensuring thorough discovery.

This scenario underscores the complexities of modern legal cases involving digital information, particularly when the defendant operates primarily through digital platforms. Such cases demand significant resources and expertise in digital forensics, highlighting the need for law firms that specialize in complex litigation and understand the intricacies of technology-dependent discovery processes.

Uber faces a new lawsuit from investors alleging that company executives, including CEO Dara Khosrowshahi and former CFO Nelson Chai, misled shareholders about the number of pending sexual assault claims to artificially inflate the stock price. Investors claim that the undisclosed figure, estimated at around 10,000 cases, significantly affected market valuation and investor trust, highlighting concerns over corporate governance and disclosure practices at Uber.

Uber has introduced new safety measures aimed at enhancing passenger security, as detailed in their April 10th press release titled "Set it and Forget it: How to Maximize Your Safety Features." The updates include:

• RideCheck Feature: Monitors for unexpected stops or deviations from the route, alerting passengers to confirm their safety.
• PIN Verification System: Provides a four-digit code for passengers to match with their driver, ensuring the correct vehicle match.
• Audio Recording Feature: Allows passengers to record their trip audio, stored in encrypted files accessible only through a safety report.
• Share My Trip Option: Enables passengers to share their location and trip details with a trusted contact in real-time.

Additionally, Uber introduced customizable settings that allow passengers to activate these features based on specific conditions, such as time of day or location, like near bars or restaurants. While these enhancements are likely in response to numerous sexual assault lawsuits, they also raise questions about the timing and motives behind these improvements, with some viewing them as too little too late or as a public relations effort to mend Uber's image.

To facilitate the exchange of consistent information in the Uber rideshare assault litigation, all parties are required to complete and submit specific fact sheet forms. This process aims to streamline information gathering and identify key legal issues, aiding in the selection of bellwether cases for future test trials. With 43 new cases added since the start of 2024, the total now reaches 230 lawsuits alleging personal injuries from physical or sexual assaults by Uber drivers. This step is part of broader efforts to manage and resolve these claims effectively.

A federal judge has ruled that Uber can be held vicariously liable for an alleged assault by one of its drivers, Kehinde Idogho Micah, following an argument with passenger Rommel Fuentes over payment. The court rejected Uber's request to dismiss the vicarious liability claim, determining that Micah was acting within the scope of his employment during the incident. This decision aligns with precedents from Virginia and South Carolina, which assert that actions by drivers are in furtherance of their employer's business. While claims of negligent hiring and retention against Uber were dismissed due to insufficient evidence, the case underscores ongoing concerns about rideshare companies' responsibilities for their drivers' conduct. Uber has consistently claimed to be merely a connecting app, a position the court has challenged.

Judge Charles Breyer has mandated that Uber release all documents shared with government bodies during investigations into sexual assaults within the company. This order aims to uncover Uber's approach towards passenger and women's safety. Critics argue that Uber has inadequately protected passengers from potential criminal acts by drivers, pointing to the numerous reports and allegations of sexual assault as evidence of the company's negligence.

A Connecticut court has denied Lyft's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit regarding a 14-year-old girl who was transported across state lines into New York and allegedly sexually abused. The lawsuit accuses Lyft of negligence for not verifying the girl's age in violation of its policy against driving minors unaccompanied. Despite Lyft's defense of not being liable for the driver's actions, the court is allowing the addition of vicarious liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, removing a negligent supervision claim. The judge highlighted Lyft's existing policy on minors as evidence that the company should have foreseen such risks.

A master complaint has been officially filed in the Uber multidistrict litigation, streamlining the process for new plaintiffs. This document outlines the core allegations against Uber, accusing it of prioritizing growth and profit over passenger safety since 2014. Despite knowledge of sexual assaults by drivers, Uber allegedly failed to implement essential safety measures such as in-car cameras, biometric verification, and stricter background checks. Moreover, the complaint accuses Uber of permitting drivers with histories of sexual misconduct to remain active on the platform. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for their injuries and punitive damages against Uber for its alleged negligence and harmful conduct.

This week marked the filing of the 100th lawsuit in the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL). Despite its growth, this mass tort is expanding more slowly compared to cases involving commercial products. The slower pace is attributed to minimal advertisement on television and radio, coupled with the hesitancy of sexual assault survivors to come forward with their experiences. It is expected that the number of cases filed in the MDL will surpass 300 by the upcoming summer.

Uber has appealed against the decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate sexual assault lawsuits into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL), arguing that the panel abused its discretion and neglected the diversity of state laws involved. Despite Uber's appeal, it's important to note that the JPML has a solid track record of its decisions on centralization of cases being upheld. This move by Uber is perceived more as a last-ditch effort or a strategy to delay proceedings.

Uber made a move to dissolve the sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), established on October 4, 2023, by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). This MDL consolidated federal cases involving claims of sexual assault by Uber drivers. Uber's argument to Judge Breyer highlighted an alleged misuse of discretion in forming the MDL, suggesting it disregarded the varied state laws applicable to these cases. However, Uber's challenge lacks historical support, as the JPML's decisions to centralize cases have never been reversed in its 55-year history.

As the Ninth Circuit reevaluates the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), Uber has sought to block the addition of new claims. Plaintiffs have recently urged Judge Gergel to dismiss Uber's request, stating that excluding new claims could harm the integrity of the legal process. The court is expected to make a decision following a status conference held on January 19. Meanwhile, six new lawsuits have been filed against Uber by passengers alleging sexual abuse, including two reports of rape. These lawsuits claim Uber neglected to adopt basic safety measures to protect passengers using its service.

In response to Uber's efforts to disclaim responsibility for certain incidents within the sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), the Ninth Circuit has sought the guidance of the California Supreme Court. This move follows a claim within the MDL where a plaintiff argues that Uber should be liable for a sexual assault committed by a former driver who misrepresented himself as an independent contractor after being terminated. Uber maintains that it cannot be held accountable for the actions of someone not currently an active driver.

The Ninth Circuit's recent ruling has led to a pause in the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL). Despite not succeeding in changing the case name to exclude "sexual assault," Uber obtained approval for a hearing to consider dismissing the MDL. The company argues that consolidating the lawsuits for pretrial activities is unsuitable due to the variance in claims, injuries, and laws involved. Following the appeals court's decision in December, Uber has requested a two-month suspension of the MDL proceedings. Currently, there has been no response to this request from either the newly formed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee or Judge Breyer.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has decided against Uber's request to remove "sexual assault" from the title of the federal Uber sexual assault cases consolidated before Judge Breyer in the Northern District of California. Uber's legal team argued that including "sexual assault" in the MDL's name presupposes guilt, pointing to precedents where MDL titles were altered. However, the JPML has chosen to retain the original naming.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a group of federal judges, has moved to consolidate close to eighty lawsuits related to Uber sexual assaults before Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California. This action creates a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for all current federal cases, with expectations for the number of lawsuits within the MDL to increase over time.