Uber sexual assault bellwether trial ends in $8.5M verdict

By Top Class Actions | February 12, 2026

Category: Legal News

Uber sign — (Photo Credit: nitpicker/Shutterstock)

Uber verdict overview:

Who: A federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.
Why: The jury found Uber liable for the actions of the driver but not negligent with respect to rider safety.
Where: The Uber sexual assault bellwether trial took place in federal court in Arizona.
How to get help: Were you or a loved one sexually assaulted by an Uber or Lyft driver? You may qualify to file a lawsuit.

A federal jury in Arizona awarded an Uber passenger $8.5 million after finding the ride-share company liable for the actions of a driver who allegedly sexually assaulted her.

The jury of six women and three men deliberated for about 12 hours over three days before reaching the $8.5 million verdict in the first federal bellwether trial over Uber’s liability for assaults committed by its drivers, Law360 reports. The jury declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff, Jaylynn Dean, filed the Uber sexual assault lawsuit in December 2023, weeks after the alleged sexual assault in Tempe, Arizona. She sought $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages, but the jury rejected claims that Uber was negligent with respect to rider safety.

Dean says she relied on Uber’s representations regarding its security and safety measures when she booked a ride through the app after an evening of drinking — and then was raped by her Uber driver.

Dean raised three claims against Uber: negligence, product defect and “apparent agency,” a legal doctrine in which a principal is held liable for an agent’s actions by a third party who believed an agency relationship existed.

Uber maintains it only connects passengers with independent ride contractors.

Uber plans to appeal jury’s decision on liability for driver’s actions

According to Law360, an Uber spokesperson said the company plans to appeal the jury’s decision on liability for the driver’s actions.

“The jury rejected claims that Uber was negligent and that our safety systems were defective. They awarded an amount far below what was sought, and declined to award punitive damages altogether,” the Uber spokesperson said. “This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do.”

Co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Sarah London of Girard Sharp, welcomed the jury’s decision.

“Today’s verdict validates the thousands of survivors who have come forward at great personal risk to demand accountability against Uber for its focus on profit over passenger safety,” London said. “The jury heard extensive evidence about Uber’s practices and recognized that Uber is responsible for the conduct of its drivers.”

“Thousands of cases remain, and justice will ultimately be measured by the outcomes of the ongoing litigation and whether meaningful safety reforms are implemented to protect passengers going forward,” London said.

In September, a state court jury in San Francisco considered similar allegations in the first such state court bellwether trial.

That jury held that Uber was negligent with respect to safety measures it took to protect the passenger, but the jury concluded that Uber was not liable for damages because its negligence wasn’t a substantial factor in causing her harm.

What do you think of the Uber verdict in the sexual assault bellwether trial? Join the discussion in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP, Alexandra M. Walsh of Anapol Weiss and Deobrah Chang of Chang Klein LLP.

The Uber sexual assault lawsuit is Jaylyn Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04276, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Uber MDL is In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, Case No. 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California.