A growing wave of civil lawsuits against Uber accuses the company of negligence in protecting passengers from sexual assault by its drivers. These cases, numbering over 4,000, span multiple states and often involve graphic allegations of abuse that occurred during rides. While some drivers have been criminally convicted, many cases remain in civil court, where the standard of proof is lower.

Central to Uber’s legal defense is a strategy that closely examines the personal histories and behaviors of accusers, probing into their mental health, past traumas, substance use, and sexual histories. Court documents and depositions reveal that Uber’s lawyers request extensive medical records, therapy notes, social media communications, and explore details about the plaintiffs’ behavior on the night of the alleged assaults. This approach extends to questioning about childhood abuse, consensual sexual activity, and drug or alcohol consumption.

Critics, including legal experts and advocates for sexual assault survivors, say Uber’s tactics risk re-traumatizing victims and potentially deterring others from coming forward. They argue the company’s strategy resembles older legal practices aimed at discrediting accusers by highlighting their past vulnerabilities and behaviors. “This kills me,” one plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe in court filings, said during a deposition where she faced detailed questioning about mixing alcohol and Adderall, her clothing, and childhood experiences.

Uber publicly portrays itself as committed to supporting survivors of sexual violence, emphasizing a “survivor-centric” and “trauma-informed” approach. The company has invested millions in partnerships with anti-violence organizations and provides training to its customer service teams to counter victim-blaming attitudes. Uber’s chief legal officer, Tony West, maintains that the company’s legal defense and respectful treatment of survivors are not mutually exclusive and insists that his team treats plaintiffs with dignity and compassion.

Yet, internal discussions reveal a shift in Uber’s handling of the lawsuits. After ending forced arbitration for sexual assault claims in 2018, a move intended to provide survivors greater access to court, the company saw a surge in litigation that coincided with declining revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some sources indicate that Uber recalibrated toward more aggressive legal defenses to manage mounting costs, though the company has not publicly addressed when or how this shift occurred.

Several early trials have showcased Uber’s defense strategy, with lawyers emphasizing plaintiffs’ past traumas and questioning their credibility. In one California trial, Uber highlighted a plaintiff’s history of childhood abuse and suicide attempts; in another Arizona case, legal teams contended the driver believed the interaction was consensual, pointing to video footage of the plaintiff appearing lucid post-ride. In a third North Carolina case, the defense stressed the plaintiff's substance abuse history and challenged the severity of the alleged incident.

Outcomes have varied. Uber won the first trial but lost the next two, which are now under appeal. Awards granted to plaintiffs have been significantly lower than the amounts originally sought. Plaintiffs and their attorneys have criticized Uber’s approaches for diverting attention from the alleged assaults to the personal lives of survivors. Meanwhile, Uber’s legal representatives argue that their examination of each case is a professional and ethical obligation to challenge claims and assess damages accurately.

Uber continues to settle many cases, particularly those nearing trial, but maintains an active defense in others, including those involving drivers convicted of sexual assault in criminal courts. In one Texas case scheduled for trial later this year, despite a driver’s criminal conviction and 11-year sentence, Uber’s lawyers have questioned the facts of the incident during hearings, indicating ongoing legal disputes over liability.

The lawsuits against Uber highlight complex tensions between legal defense obligations and corporate reputations, raising questions about how companies balance accountability, survivor support, and litigation strategy in cases involving sexual violence.