Uber lawsuit overview:
- Who: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer partially granted Uber Technologies Inc.’s motion to dismiss 20 bellwether cases in ongoing multidistrict litigation.
- Why: Some fraud and product liability claims were dismissed, while others — including claims related to Uber’s driver notifications and app functionality — were allowed to proceed.
Where: The multidistrict litigation (MDL) is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. - How to get help: If you were assaulted by an Uber or Lyft driver, legal help is available. Get a free and confidential case review.
A California federal judge has partially dismissed claims in a bellwether group of lawsuits accusing Uber of failing to protect riders from sexual assault. However, several claims — including allegations of deceptive omissions and certain product liability claims — were allowed to proceed.
The Uber sexual assault MDL includes claims from more than 20 women who say Uber knew for years that some drivers posed safety risks but failed to implement effective safeguards like in-car cameras, improved background checks, or app-based protections. The plaintiffs claim Uber failed to screen, monitor or discipline its drivers, and that it misled passengers about the safety of its service.
Judge agrees Uber’s marketing campaigns were not misleading
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected claims that Uber’s marketing campaigns — such as ads saying “Don’t drink and drive, call an Uber” — were misleading. The court found that the slogans amounted to general encouragement and “non-actionable puffery,” not specific safety guarantees.
However, the judge declined to dismiss fraud and misrepresentation claims based on the in-app driver profiles that appear after a ride is booked. Plaintiffs allege that Uber misled users about ride safety by showing a driver’s name, photo, vehicle, and rating but failing to include prior misconduct or criminal history. Judge Breyer ruled these claims could reasonably be seen as deceptive omissions.
On the product liability front, the court dismissed claims based on Uber’s decision not to implement “Safe Ride Matching,” an internal algorithmic tool that plaintiffs said could reduce risk by blocking certain driver-passenger pairings. The judge said those allegations targeted Uber’s services rather than a product defect.
However, the court allowed claims related to Uber’s failure to offer Gender Matching, a feature that would allow passengers to choose drivers of the same gender. Judge Breyer said this functionality, like parental controls in other consumer apps, relates to the app’s design and could support a product liability theory.
Uber previously asked the court to move 13 of the bellwether cases to districts where the alleged assaults occurred, citing its terms of service. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on that motion.
Last year, Breyer ordered Uber to hand over safety report data related to sexual assaults and misconduct committed by drivers against their passengers.
Have you ever felt unsafe or been assaulted when riding in an Uber? See if you have a legal claim.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, and Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP.
The Uber sexual assault litigation is In re: Uber Technologies Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, Case No. 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
