Thousands of passengers have filed a rideshare sexual assault lawsuit against Uber or Lyft, and the cases have been consolidated into two federal multidistrict proceedings in the Northern District of California. The Uber litigation now covers roughly 3,900 claims and has produced its first two bellwether verdicts, both against the company. The Lyft litigation is newer and still in early discovery. Together, the cases test whether rideshare companies can keep calling themselves technology platforms or whether they are transportation carriers on the hook for what happens to passengers in their cars.
Where the Cases Stand
In October 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal sexual assault claims against Uber into In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.1Courthouse News Service. Uber Liable for Sexual Assault by Driver As of mid-2026, about 3,057 claims are pending in the federal MDL, with another 854 active in California state court, for a total of more than 3,900 lawsuits from passengers in over 30 states.2TorHoerman Law. Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit
Lyft’s proceeding is much younger. On February 5, 2026, the JPML consolidated federal claims against Lyft into In re: Lyft, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3171, before Judge Rita F. Lin. The panel initially centralized 17 actions from 10 districts, and by June 2026 the federal docket had grown to roughly 54 cases, with nearly 2,000 individuals said to have filed against Lyft overall when state court cases are counted.3MDL Update. Lyft Passenger Sexual Assault4Lieff Cabraser. Lyft Survivors A parallel set of state cases remains consolidated in San Francisco Superior Court under California JCCP No. 5061.
What Plaintiffs Are Alleging
The claims are not that Uber or Lyft assaulted anyone directly. They are that the companies created the conditions for assaults by cutting corners on driver screening and safety. Plaintiffs allege Uber relied on cheap, name-based background checks instead of the fingerprint-based FBI screenings used by taxi companies, skipped in-person interviews and drug testing, and did not invest meaningfully in preventing sexual violence.5Peiffer Wolf. Court Filings Claim Ubers Lax Driver Background Checks Put Women Riders at Risk
Internal documents surfaced in discovery have reinforced those arguments. A 2015 Uber strategy memo outlined a plan to “shift the conversation about safety from background checks” to less costly initiatives, and a 2018 email from Uber’s head of safety communications described the company’s screening process as a “bare minimum.”6The New York Times. Uber Background Checks Sexual Assault Uber has also acknowledged that critical “supply plans” and internal risk-scoring data were automatically deleted after 30 days.7Lawsuit Information Center. Uber Sex Assault Lawsuit And under Uber’s own policy in 22 states, drivers with convictions for child abuse, assault, or stalking can still qualify to drive if the conviction is at least seven years old.
What the First Two Uber Trials Decided
The first federal bellwether, Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc., went to a jury in Arizona in early 2026. Dean alleged that in November 2023 an Uber driver named Hassan Turay sexually assaulted her during a ride, and argued Uber marketed itself as a safe option for women traveling alone while failing to require in-car cameras or serious driver vetting.1Courthouse News Service. Uber Liable for Sexual Assault by Driver
On February 5, 2026, the jury returned $8.5 million in compensatory damages. The theory it used mattered as much as the number. Jurors rejected Dean’s negligence and design-defect claims but found Uber liable under an “apparent agency” theory, concluding that Dean reasonably believed Turay was working for Uber given the company’s own branding, which used phrases like “taking an Uber with your Uber driver.” Jurors declined the punitive damages Dean had sought (she asked for more than $120 million total), saying they had not found the company formally negligent.1Courthouse News Service. Uber Liable for Sexual Assault by Driver During the trial, Uber’s Chief Product Officer testified that the company “has not done enough” to prevent sexual assaults.7Lawsuit Information Center. Uber Sex Assault Lawsuit Uber has said it plans to appeal.
The second bellwether, Brianna Mensing v. Uber Technologies, Inc., went to trial in Charlotte, North Carolina, in April 2026. Mensing alleged that in March 2019, when she was 23, her Uber driver Jeffrey Richardson grabbed her upper inner thigh and made a sexually suggestive remark at the end of a late-night ride, and that she escaped by jumping out of the car. Uber’s defense attacked her credibility, arguing the claims surfaced only as part of the lawsuit and pointing to what it described as the “height of her drug addiction.”8The New York Times. Uber Sexual Assault Verdict Bellwether The jury found the driver liable for battery and awarded only $5,000. The bigger development in that trial was a ruling from the bench: the judge found that Uber qualifies as a common carrier with a non-delegable duty to safely transport passengers.9Law360. Uber Had Non-Delegable Duty Judge Finds in Assault MDL
The Common Carrier Fight
Whether Uber and Lyft are “common carriers” is the fight underneath everything else. Common carriers (buses, trains, taxis) owe passengers a heightened duty of care that they cannot contract or delegate away. If Uber is one, the independent-contractor status of its drivers stops being a shield.
Plaintiffs argue Uber holds itself out to the public as a transportation service, sets fares, assigns drivers, and controls the ride experience. Uber counters that it is a technology company connecting willing riders with willing drivers.2TorHoerman Law. Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit The April 2026 ruling from the North Carolina bellwether went the plaintiffs’ way, and Uber is appealing. If the classification survives appellate review, it changes the liability calculus for every remaining case.
Why These Cases Can Be in Court at All
For years, both companies required riders to agree to mandatory arbitration as a condition of using the app, pushing claims into private proceedings. Uber dropped its arbitration requirement for individual sexual assault and harassment claims in 2018, and Lyft followed. Both also stopped requiring survivors to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of settlements.10SDG16 Plus. Forced Arbitration and Sexual Misconduct
The bigger legal change came from the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, signed on March 3, 2022. The law voids predispute arbitration agreements in sexual assault and harassment cases, letting survivors go to court regardless of what an app’s terms of service said.11Yale Law Journal. The Limits of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act It applies to claims arising after enactment and is credited with enabling the Lyft MDL for post-March 2022 incidents.3MDL Update. Lyft Passenger Sexual Assault Uber separately tried to use its “Collective Action Waiver” to block MDL consolidation, and the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument in March 2025, holding that a private contract cannot override the JPML’s statutory authority.12Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In re Uber Technologies, No. 23-3445
How Many Assaults Have Been Reported
Both companies publish periodic safety transparency reports. Uber’s most recent, released in August 2024, documented 2,717 sexual assault incidents across the five most serious categories during 2021 and 2022, including 355 reports of non-consensual sexual penetration. Riders were the victims in 91% of rape cases, and women were 89% of survivors.13TruLaw. Uber Driver Sexual Assault Statistics and Reports Uber says the rate of the most serious reports dropped 44% between 2017 and 2022, occurring in roughly 1 in 5 million trips.14Uber. Ubers Safety Record
Court filings have surfaced a larger internal number. Uber received over 400,000 total reports of sexual assault and misconduct between 2017 and 2022, only about 12,500 of which the company classified as “serious” enough to include in its public reports; Uber says most of the rest involved non-physical conduct such as inappropriate comments or staring.14Uber. Ubers Safety Record
Lyft’s second transparency report, covering 2020 through 2022, documented 2,651 incidents across the five most serious categories, including 365 reports of non-consensual sexual penetration, a 21% decrease in the incident rate compared with 2017–2019. Across both reports, Lyft disclosed 6,809 sexual assault incidents from 2017 through 2022.15Lyft Safety Transparency Report. Safety Transparency Report 2020-2022
Laws That Could Change the Picture
Legislatures are moving in both directions. A California ballot initiative that qualified for the November 2026 ballot after gathering 546,651 signatures would classify rideshare companies as common carriers under state law, make them legally responsible for injuries from a driver’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct regardless of contractor status, and require annual fingerprint-based background checks and monthly reporting of sexual misconduct incidents.16Westside Current. Rideshare Liability Measure Qualifies for 2026 Ballot17California Secretary of State. Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation Expands Rideshare Companies Liability
On June 2, 2026, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1424, which requires rideshare companies to conduct criminal background checks every six months, take measures to prevent imposter drivers and account sharing, respond to law enforcement subpoenas within 72 hours, and submit annual safety and discrimination data to state regulators beginning in February 2027. The law also permits audio and video recording during rides at either party’s request, with civil penalties of up to $1,500 per violation.18KRDO. Gov Polis Signs Rideshare Safety Bill Into Law19Colorado General Assembly. HB26-1424 Transportation Network Company Consumer Protection
Moving the other way, an amendment to the federal BUILD America 250 Act, introduced by Rep. Vince Fong of California, would preempt vicarious liability claims against rideshare and delivery companies unless they were “grossly negligent” or engaged in “criminal wrongdoing.” The amendment passed committee 35-30 in May 2026. In June, 128 members of Congress sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson demanding the provision be removed, arguing it would shield rideshare companies from accountability for passenger sexual assaults.20Legal Newsline. BUILD America 250 Act Would Help Uber Lyft With Lawsuits21Rep. Sykes. Rep Sykes DWC Urge Speaker Johnson to Remove Amendment
What Comes Next
Judge Breyer has directed each side to select six cases from a pool of 20 for further bellwether trials. The third bellwether, involving a 2022 assault of a California woman, is scheduled to begin jury selection on September 14, 2026. Some MDL cases have begun settling, with 9% of settlement and judgment proceeds allocated to a court-administered common benefit fund (7% for attorney fees, 2% for costs). Settlement volume remains low and terms are confidential.2TorHoerman Law. Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit Uber’s appeals of the Arizona verdict and the North Carolina common carrier ruling will shape what those settlements ultimately look like, and the Lyft MDL, still in discovery, is watching the Uber cases closely.