Uber has told the California Public Utilities Commission that the company will not share information for sexual assault victims, as requested in a Dec. 19, 2019 order. This request was made after Uber sexual assault numbers were made public last year, and the commission wanted additional information.

In December, Administrative Law Judge Robert Mason had requested details on Uber sexual assault instances that had occurred in connection with Uber. Judge Mason had also requested that Uber provide information about Uber’s safety protocol. This request was made in response to an Uber sexual assault numbers report, in which the company stated that over 3,000 sexual assaults had been reported during Uber rides in 2018.

According to the report of Uber sexual assault numbers, 1.3 billion rides were given in 2018, and over 3,000 sexual assaults occurred, 235 of which were rapes. The number of rides given in 2018 rose from one billion in 2017, and with it rose the number of assaults and rapes, which were reported at 2,936 assaults and 229 rapes in 2017.

The San Francisco Chronicle explains that the California Public Utilities Commission wanted the information on assaults in order to better investigate the incidents.

What Is the Argument for Withholding this Information?

According to a spokesman for the commission, the victims’ information could be sealed to protect their privacy, but Uber claimed that this would still be a privacy problem.

The ride-hailing company claimed that reporting victim information to the state could put those victims at risk. Uber argued that having their information made public could re-traumatize victims, especially if the state contacted them.

Additionally, Uber expressed the concern that if the company was required to hand over personal information for victims, people would be less likely to come forward with reports of assault if they were worried that their information could be exposed.

The San Fransisco Chronicle explains that some critics who oppose making the information public argue that this could subject the victim to re-victimization if an abuser attempted to retaliate. Vice President for Policy and Emerging Issues at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Allison Randall, said releasing the information “takes away their voice, their story, and that winds up having a chilling effect and causing other survivors to not come forward.”

Taking a technical stance, Uber also argued that the request made by the California Public Utilities Commission was in opposition to state policy in which victims of sexual abuse and assault can request that their information not be made public.

Uber stated that making assault reports public could also harm people who are accused of sexual assault but did not commit it, as Uber does not determine whether or not an assault occurred; the company merely records reported incidents.

The New York Times notes that safety has been a challenging issue for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. Some customers claim the companies have not done enough to protect both drivers and riders and have turned to lawsuits to make their voices heard.

Both companies have faced lawsuits; in 2017 a woman claimed that she was raped by her Uber driver and that the company did not properly handle her medical records in the wake of the incident. Recently, a group of 19 women and one man have filed a lawsuit challenging Lyft’s handling of assaults.

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.