Uber Sexual Assault Cases Consolidated into MDL 3084

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s creation of MDL No. 3084 represents a watershed moment for survivors seeking to hold Uber accountable for its alleged pattern of prioritizing growth over passenger safety.

This mass lawsuit brings together federal cases from multiple jurisdictions, creating a unified legal front that challenges Uber’s business model and its systematic disregard for foreseeable sexual assault risks.

The MDL structure enables efficient coordination of these Uber lawsuits while preserving each plaintiff’s individual claims for compensation.

What is an MDL and How Does It Work for Uber Sexual Assault Victims

Multidistrict litigation differs fundamentally from class action lawsuits by maintaining each plaintiff’s separate case while coordinating common pretrial proceedings for efficiency.

The MDL 3084 structure provides several advantages for sexual assault survivors:

• Shared Discovery Resources: All plaintiffs benefit from combined efforts to uncover Uber’s internal documents, safety studies, and driver complaint histories that individual cases might not access
• Consistent Legal Rulings: Judge Breyer’s decisions on common legal issues apply across all cases, preventing contradictory rulings that could weaken claims
• Individual Damage Awards: Unlike class actions, each plaintiff maintains their right to individualized compensation based on their specific injuries and circumstances after they sue Uber
• Coordinated Expert Testimony: Plaintiffs share costs for expert witnesses on safety standards, psychological trauma, and corporate negligence
• Bellwether Trial Selection: Test cases chosen for early trials establish precedents and settlement benchmarks for remaining cases

The Master Long-Form Complaint serves as an administrative device summarizing common allegations while individual short-form complaints preserve case-specific details.

This dual-pleading structure allows the court to address systemic issues efficiently while respecting each survivor’s unique experience.

Current Status and Timeline of the Uber Sexual Assault MDL

Judge Breyer’s August 15, 2024 ruling marked a pivotal development in the MDL proceedings, with the court allowing multiple theories of liability to proceed while dismissing others with leave to amend.

The court’s rulings established the following framework for moving forward:

• Preserved Claims: Negligence theories including negligent hiring, retention, and supervision remain viable across all jurisdictions, making Uber legally responsible for certain failures
• California Victories: Vicarious liability under respondeat superior and common carrier theories survived dismissal motions despite what Uber claims about independent contractors
• Texas Limitations: The state’s TNC statute bars most vicarious liability unless plaintiffs prove gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence
• Dismissed with Leave to Amend: Fraud claims, ratification claims, and product liability claims can be refiled with additional allegations
• Punitive Damages Allowed: The court found sufficient allegations of malice and gross negligence to support punitive damage claims

A case management conference scheduled for August 29, 2024, addressed timelines for amended pleadings and the path toward the first bellwether trial.

The court emphasized that MDL procedures do not excuse plaintiffs from standard pleading requirements, requiring case-specific allegations for certain claims.

If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault during an Uber ride, you may be eligible to join the MDL proceedings.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility for the Uber Sexual Assault MDL today.

The Master Complaint reveals a disturbing timeline of sexual violence on Uber’s platform, with the company receiving assault reports as early as 2014, less than one year after launching its non-professional driver program where assaults happened repeatedly.

Court documents reveal how Uber internally categorized these events as safety incidents rather than acknowledging them as sexual assaults, representing not isolated criminal acts but a predictable consequence of Uber’s business model.

Statistical Analysis of Uber Safety Reports and Hidden Data

Court documents expose the staggering frequency of sexual assaults reported to Uber, painting a picture of systematic corporate indifference to rider safety.

The Master Complaint’s revelations about assault frequency include:

• Continuous Reports Since 2014: Sexual assault complaints began arriving within Uber’s first year of operation and have continued unabated through the present
• 6,000 Reports in Two Years: Approximately 6,000 sexual assault reports were documented in just 2017 and 2018 among hundreds of millions of rides, as reported by the New York Times and other outlets
• Systematic Underreporting: Uber’s policies prohibited agents from reporting assaults to police, artificially suppressing official incident statistics
• Untrained Response Teams: Investigators handling assault reports typically had “little to no background in trauma response” and used scripted responses
• 400,000+ Total Reports: Between 2017 and 2022, Uber received sexual assault or misconduct reports almost every eight minutes

The true scope likely exceeds these documented figures, as many survivors never report what Uber’s internal classification system termed serious incidents, due to shame, trauma, or Uber’s deliberately opaque reporting mechanisms.

Internal policies actively discouraged comprehensive reporting by requiring victims to navigate systems while traumatized.

Types of Sexual Assault and Their Long-Term Impact on Victims

While the Master Complaint protects individual privacy by avoiding graphic details, it encompasses a spectrum of sexual violence including inappropriate touching of any body part (whether categorized as a sexual or non sexual body part) that destroys survivors’ sense of safety and trust.

The range of sexual abuse alleged in MDL 3084 includes various forms of sexual misconduct, such as:

• Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, propositions, and verbal threats creating hostile environments within locked vehicles where passengers have been sexually harassed
• Unwanted Touching: Non-consensual contact ranging from groping to sustained physical assault while passengers remain trapped
• Forced Sexual Acts: Coerced kissing, oral contact, and other sexual acts imposed through physical force or intimidation
• Rape and Attempted Rape: The most severe assaults involving sexual penetration or attempted penetration, often following route deviations where an Uber driver sexually assaulted passengers
• Kidnapping and False Imprisonment: Drivers refusing to stop, deviating to isolated locations, or locking Uber passengers in vehicles

These assaults cause profound, lasting trauma that extends far beyond the immediate physical violation.

Survivors report developing PTSD, severe anxiety, depression, and inability to use rideshare services or travel alone.

The breach of trust inherent in being assaulted by a supposedly vetted service provider compounds the psychological damage.

If you experienced any form of sexual assault or harassment in an Uber vehicle, your experience matters and deserves justice.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for a confidential case evaluation to explore your legal options in the Uber Sexual Assault MDL.

The Master Complaint’s most damning allegations center on Uber’s conscious choice to prioritize explosive growth over decisions to implement essential safety measures that could have prevented thousands of assaults.

Court documents reveal a company that understood sexual assault risks from its inception but systematically rejected safety recommendations to maximize driver recruitment and minimize operational costs.

The Background Check Controversy: How Dangerous Drivers Slipped Through

Uber’s failure to properly screen drivers allegedly represents a calculated decision to accept dangerous individuals rather than implement rigorous vetting that might slow expansion.

Critical failures in Uber’s background check system include:

• Name-Based Checks Only: Uber uses cursory name-based searches instead of fingerprint verification, missing criminal records with name variations
• 36-Hour Processing: The company prioritizes speed over thoroughness, using services that promise results within 36 hours
• Enrollment Before Completion: Drivers sometimes begin accepting rides before background checks finish processing
• 12-15% Failure Rate: When states required fingerprint checks, 12-15% of Uber-approved drivers failed more rigorous screening
• Short Coverage Periods: Background checks cover limited timeframes, missing older convictions that indicate dangerous patterns
• No Ongoing Monitoring: Uber fails to recheck drivers periodically, allowing those who commit crimes after hiring to continue operating

The complaint alleges these deficiencies represent deliberate choices to maximize driver supply rather than oversight failures, with Uber explicitly rejecting taxi industry standards.

Corporate Knowledge and Failure to Act on Safety Warnings

Internal documents revealed through discovery demonstrate Uber’s executive team possessed detailed knowledge of assault risks but chose profits over protection, even as Uber lawyers and leadership discussed these risks.

Evidence of Uber’s conscious disregard includes:

• 2014 Assault Reports: Sexual assault complaints began immediately after launching the UberX service with non-professional drivers
• No Initial Safety Planning: For years, Uber employed no safety experts and devoted zero resources to assault prevention
• Multiple Assaults Before Termination: Official policy until 2019 required multiple sexual assault complaints before removing drivers
• Profit-Based Tolerance: High-earning drivers received “three or four free passes” for sexual assaults before termination, as Uber argues internally about revenue impacts
• 2017 Reputation Management: When finally hiring safety staff, Uber prioritized managing public perception over protecting passengers
• Police Reporting Prohibition: Company policy forbids employees from reporting driver assaults to law enforcement

This pattern of deliberate indifference transforms individual assaults into predictable consequences of corporate decisions prioritizing growth over safety.

The Role of Technology and App Design in Enabling Assaults

The Master Complaint identifies numerous safety features Uber developed but refused to implement, demonstrating the company’s technical capability to prevent assaults.

Rejected safety technologies that could have protected passengers include:

• In-Car Recording Systems: Video and audio monitoring proven to deter assault in other transportation contexts
• Real-Time Route Monitoring: GPS algorithms to detect suspicious deviations and alert authorities automatically
• Panic Button Integration: Direct 911 connectivity allowing passengers to summon help instantly
• Biometric Driver Verification: Facial recognition preventing account sharing and ensuring the approved driver operates the vehicle
• Gender Matching Options: Allowing passengers to request same-gender drivers to reduce assault risks
• Female Drivers Matching: Option for female passengers to specifically request female drivers
• Behavioral Pattern Detection: Algorithms identifying drivers exhibiting predatory behaviors before assaults occur

Uber allegedly conducted cost-benefit analyses weighing implementation expenses against projected assault settlement costs, choosing to accept liability rather than protect passengers.

The systematic rejection of available safety measures demonstrates Uber’s willingness to sacrifice passenger safety for profit margins.

Contact TruLaw to discuss how Uber’s technological failures contributed to your assault and explore your rights in the MDL proceedings.

Plaintiffs in MDL 3084 assert eight distinct legal theories challenging Uber’s liability shield, with Judge Breyer’s August 2024 ruling preserving multiple pathways to hold the company accountable for passenger assaults under federal law.

The Master Complaint’s alphabetical listing (beginning with “B”) reflects strategic pleading designed to maximize recovery options across different state laws, including California state court precedents.

Negligence and Duty of Care: Uber’s Legal Obligations to Passengers

The cornerstone negligence claims survived dismissal motions intact, establishing Uber’s fundamental duty to protect passengers from foreseeable harm.

Key components of the negligence theories include:

• Negligent Hiring: Uber’s inadequate background checks and low barriers to driver entry created foreseeable assault risks
• Negligent Retention: Keeping drivers on the platform despite complaints and red flags violated reasonable care standards
• Negligent Supervision: Failure to monitor driver behavior or implement oversight systems breached supervisory duties
• Negligent Entrustment: While dismissed as a separate claim, providing company branding materials to dangerous drivers supports general negligence
• Common Carrier Duties: California recognizes Uber’s heightened obligations requiring “utmost care and diligence” for passenger safety

Judge Breyer’s ruling emphasized that common carrier status creates non-delegable duties, meaning Uber cannot escape liability by claiming drivers are independent contractors, though plaintiffs may still need to challenge Uber’s privilege claims during discovery.

This finding represents a major victory for California plaintiffs, as it establishes strict liability for driver assaults regardless of employment classification.

Vicarious liability theories yielded mixed results across jurisdictions:

• Respondeat Superior (California): The court found sexual assault could fall within employment scope given Uber’s business model
• Apparent Agency: Allowed in California but dismissed in Texas, based on reasonable passenger belief in driver employment
• Ratification: Dismissed without prejudice, requiring specific allegations about Uber’s response to individual incidents
• Common Carrier Vicarious Liability: Preserved in California based on non-delegable duty principles
• Texas TNC Statute Impact: Vicarious liability barred unless plaintiffs prove gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence

The court’s analysis of foreseeability proved particularly favorable, recognizing that Uber’s business model of pairing strangers in isolated vehicles creates inherent assault risks, though discovery disputes may arise if Uber attorneys are withholding key evidence relevant to corporate knowledge.

Every sexual assault represents both an individual driver’s crime and Uber’s systemic failure to protect passengers.

Contact TruLaw to evaluate which legal theories best support your claims for compensation in the MDL.

While MDL 3084 remains in active litigation without finalized settlements, the court’s preservation of key liability theories and punitive damage claims positions survivors for substantial compensation through potential global settlement negotiations.

Settlement values will vary based on assault severity, evidence quality, and jurisdiction, with bellwether trials establishing benchmarks for resolution discussions.

The Bellwether Trial Process and Its Impact on Settlements

The MDL’s bellwether trial selection process represents a strategic mechanism for testing liability theories and damage valuations before broader settlement discussions.

Critical aspects of the bellwether process include:

• Representative Case Selection: Parties jointly identify cases spanning different assault types, jurisdictions, and evidence strengths
• Discovery Prioritization: Bellwether cases receive expedited discovery including depositions of Uber executives
• Trial Venue Strategy: Some cases may return to home jurisdictions for trial, creating verdict diversity
• Settlement Pressure Points: Early verdicts establishing liability create momentum for global resolution
• Damage Benchmarking: Jury awards in test cases guide valuation of similar claims in settlement negotiations
• Appeal Testing: Bellwether appeals clarify legal standards before finalizing thousands of settlements

The trials will likely focus on cases with the strongest evidence of corporate negligence, including instances where Uber retained drivers despite prior complaints.

Texas and Florida trials may produce conservative awards that still validate liability, while California proceedings could generate substantial punitive damage verdicts.

Settlement frameworks typically emerge after 3-5 bellwether verdicts establish clear liability and damage patterns.

Contact TruLaw to understand how bellwether outcomes might impact your individual case value in the Uber MDL.

Our Uber sexual assault attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting survivors through the process of filing an Uber sexual assault lawsuit.

With extensive experience in personal injury and sexual assault litigation cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with trauma experts and safety advocates to prove how Uber’s negligent safety practices and inadequate driver screening led to your harm.

TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, therapy costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other damages resulting from sexual assault or harassment during Uber rides.

We understand the profound physical and emotional trauma that sexual assault survivors experience and provide the compassionate, confidential guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet the Lead Uber Sexual Assault Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Uber sexual assault attorney:

• Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her extensive experience in personal injury litigation and victim advocacy to her client-centered approach by prioritizing confidentiality, compassion, and personalized attention with survivors. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring an Uber sexual assault lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or other forms of sexual violence during an Uber ride, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit today.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits are being filed by survivors across the country who experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, or other forms of sexual violence during Uber rides.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Uber sexual assault lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Uber sexual assault lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The Uber sexual assault lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling personal injury and sexual assault cases similar to the Uber lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or other forms of sexual violence during an Uber ride, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify to join others in filing an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit today.