A growing wave of lawsuits alleges that Uber has failed to protect passengers from sexual violence during rides, prompting extensive litigation and scrutiny of the company’s defense tactics. Since 2017, more than 4,000 lawsuits have been filed against Uber in the United States, accusing the company of negligence in screening and supervising drivers accused of sexual misconduct. While some cases involve drivers who have been criminally convicted, many claims proceed solely as civil suits.
Uber publicly emphasizes its commitment to supporting survivors and combating sexual violence. The company has promoted a “survivor-centric” approach, partnered with leading anti-sexual assault organizations, and invested over $15 million in fighting gender-based violence. Uber’s training materials for customer service agents instruct teams to avoid victim blaming and affirm that sexual violence is never the survivor’s fault. Since 2018, Uber has also discontinued mandatory arbitration for sexual assault claims, allowing survivors to pursue claims in open court.
However, court documents and depositions reveal that Uber’s legal defense tactics frequently involve probing deeply into plaintiffs’ personal histories, including sexual trauma, mental health, substance use, and behaviors on the night of the alleged incidents. Lawyers for Uber often seek detailed medical and psychiatric records, therapy notes, social media communications, and interviews with plaintiffs’ family members and acquaintances. These inquiries extend to questions about past sexual abuse, consensual sex, drug and alcohol use, and personal life circumstances. Such questioning has been described by experts as potentially retraumatizing and intimidating, possibly deterring survivors from pursuing legal action.
In civil trials, Uber’s attorneys have challenged the credibility of plaintiffs by focusing on their histories of trauma, substance use, and personal choices, sometimes suggesting consent or disputing the connection between the alleged assaults and reported injuries. In several cases, Uber’s lawyers have emphasized that plaintiffs’ emotional distress may stem partly from past experiences unrelated to the incidents involving Uber drivers. The company maintains that these lines of inquiry are standard legal practice aimed at establishing accurate causation and assessing damages.
Uber’s chief legal officer, Tony West, has acknowledged the difficulty survivors face within the adversarial legal system and stated that Uber’s legal team strives to treat survivors with respect and dignity while defending the company. Uber’s leadership asserts that defending itself in lawsuits and treating survivors humanely are not mutually exclusive objectives. The company’s deputy general counsel, Katie Waitzman, explained that exploring pre-existing trauma is necessary when plaintiffs attribute 100 percent of their emotional injuries to incidents involving Uber, despite evidence to the contrary. Uber has also dismissed some claims as fraudulent.
The legal approach marks a shift from Uber’s initial pattern of settling sexual assault claims quietly before trial. After ending forced arbitration in 2018, the number of lawsuits surged, increasing the company’s litigation costs. Internal sources say that Uber recalibrated its strategy to contest claims more aggressively in court as a cost-saving measure amid financial pressures.
Trials over the past two years have pulled into public view the company’s legal methods. In one 2023 Arizona case, the jury awarded $8.5 million to a passenger who testified that her driver raped her while she was semi-conscious. Uber’s defense highlighted the driver’s assertion that the encounter was consensual and questioned the plaintiff’s history of sexual trauma and sobriety. Uber won the first of three trials but lost the subsequent two. All verdicts are currently under appeal.
In a notable case scheduled for trial later this year, a woman in Texas is suing Uber after a driver forced her to perform oral sex. The driver pleaded guilty in criminal court and is serving an 11-year sentence. Yet, in civil court, Uber has characterized the assault as an “alleged incident,” indicating the company’s intent to vigorously contest the matter.
Legal experts acknowledge that while gathering relevant facts is essential in litigation, Uber’s extensive probing into survivors’ private lives may deter some from seeking justice and perpetuate trauma. Critics argue that this strategy contrasts with Uber’s public messaging about safety and support for victims, raising questions about how companies balance legal defense with survivor care. Meanwhile, Uber continues to face numerous pending suits that could set additional precedents for how allegations of sexual violence involving gig economy platforms are handled in the legal system.