What Is the Uber Lawsuit?
The Uber lawsuit is federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3084), not a class action, that consolidates thousands of individual claims from people who say Uber drivers sexually assaulted or harassed them. Each plaintiff keeps an individual case, and no single class of claimants exists to join.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 3084 on October 4, 2023, when it centralized 79 actions pending in 13 districts. The Panel assigned the cases to Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California, where Uber is headquartered. The defendants are Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC, and the order is reported at 699 F. Supp. 3d 1396.
"Uber lawsuit" also names other, unrelated cases, including a Federal Trade Commission subscription case and a 2017 trade secrets case. This page tracks MDL 3084 and compares the others in a later section. A separate California state-court proceeding, JCCP No. 5188, covers the same subject and appears in the case status section.
“These actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that Uber failed to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers, and that plaintiffs suffered sexual assault or harassment as a result. Common factual questions include Uber's knowledge about the prevalence of sexual assault by Uber drivers, and whether Uber failed to conduct adequate background checks of its drivers, train drivers regarding sexual assault and harassment, implement adequate safety measures to protect passengers from sexual assault, and adequately respond to complaints about drivers.”
Source: U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, Transfer Order, Document 1 (Oct. 4, 2023)
Why Are People Filing Uber Lawsuits?
People are filing Uber lawsuits because they allege Uber failed to protect passengers from drivers who sexually assaulted or harassed them during rides. The claims rest on negligence theories, such as inadequate driver screening and weak responses to complaints, and on allegations that Uber misrepresented its commitment to safety.
A second question drives much of the litigation: whether Uber answers for the acts of drivers it classifies as independent contractors. Plaintiffs argue that it does, under theories such as "apparent agency," which treats a driver as the company's agent, and by arguing that Uber is a common carrier, a status that can carry a higher duty of care toward passengers.
Plaintiffs also point to Uber's own safety reports. News coverage reports that Uber counted 5,981 reports in its five most serious sexual assault categories for 2017 and 2018, and 3,824 for 2019 and 2020. Those figures describe reports to Uber, not proven assaults, and the Panel's own order shows the company disputes that individual claims share enough in common.
What Injuries Are Included in the Uber Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the Uber lawsuit fall into four categories: sexual assault, sexual harassment, battery and emotional distress. Each is defined below in plain language. Uber disputes the allegations, and a verdict in one bellwether case does not decide any other plaintiff's claim.
Sexual Assault
In a civil lawsuit, sexual assault is a legal claim alleging non-consensual sexual contact, allowing a plaintiff to seek monetary damages separately from any criminal case.
Sexual assault is the core harm in MDL 3084, and most plaintiffs are passengers who say a driver assaulted them during or just after an Uber ride. A civil plaintiff does not need a criminal conviction or even a police report to file, because civil cases generally ask whether the claim is more likely true than not rather than proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual conduct, comments or advances that create an uncomfortable or intimidating situation, even when no physical contact occurs.
The Panel's centralization order covers allegations of assault or harassment, so MDL 3084 is not limited to physical contact. Claims in this category involve conduct such as repeated unwelcome advances or comments during a ride, and the damages available depend on state law and the individual record.
Battery
Battery is a legal claim for harmful or offensive contact made without consent.
Battery is a separate legal label from sexual assault, and some bellwether claims rest on it. A jury applied it in one federal bellwether trial, described under the settlement section below, which shows that a claim can succeed on a narrower contact allegation than a plaintiff's full account.
Emotional Distress
Emotional distress is a category of civil damages for psychological harm, such as anxiety, depression or trauma, that follows an incident.
Plaintiffs in rideshare assault cases typically seek damages for pain and suffering, therapy and medical costs, lost wages and, in some cases, punitive damages. Which categories a plaintiff can recover, and in what amount, depends on state law, the jury and the evidence in that individual case.
Who Qualifies for the Uber Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You were a passenger who was sexually assaulted or harassed by an Uber driver during or immediately after a ride arranged through the Uber app
- You can confirm the ride through app trip history, an Uber receipt, a payment record or messages with the driver
- You suffered physical, emotional or psychological harm, and your claim falls within your state's statute of limitations, which varies widely by state
You may not qualify if:
- The incident had no connection to a ride arranged through the Uber app, so it falls outside the passenger safety allegations MDL 3084 centralizes
- Your complaint concerns Uber One billing, driver pay or driver classification, which belong to separate proceedings described below
- Your state's filing deadline has passed, or a contract term such as arbitration applies, which an attorney can assess for your specific ride and account
MDL 3084 consolidates individual cases for shared federal pretrial proceedings and does not certify a single nationwide class, so each person's claim is still evaluated on its own facts. Only a qualified attorney reviewing your records and your state's statute of limitations can confirm whether you have a claim.
What Is the Current Status of the Uber MDL?
The current status of the Uber MDL is that MDL 3084 remains in its bellwether trial phase, with 4,916 cases pending as of the Panel's October 1, 2026 report and no global settlement announced as of October 31, 2026. Two federal juries have returned verdicts and a third trial settled before openings, and none of those outcomes binds the remaining cases.
In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084
MDL 3084 is the federal track, and it is the larger of the two proceedings. Judge Charles R. Breyer oversees pretrial proceedings in San Francisco, and discovery matters are referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros, according to the court's docket.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (federal MDL) |
| MDL Number | 3084 |
| Judge | Hon. Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge |
| MDL Created | October 4, 2023 |
| Defendants | Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; Rasier-CA, LLC |
| Pending Cases | 4,916 pending, 5,221 total actions per the JPML report dated October 1, 2026 |
| Bellwether Trials | Three federal trials held or resolved; outcomes are described in the settlement section below |
| Current Stage | Bellwether trials and settlement pressure; no global settlement as of October 31, 2026 |
A bellwether trial is a test case chosen to show how a jury may view a type of claim. Its result does not bind other plaintiffs, but both sides use it to value the remaining cases.
California Uber JCCP, JCCP No. 5188
JCCP No. 5188 is the California state-court track, a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding in San Francisco County Superior Court before Judge Ethan P. Schulman. Its first bellwether trial ended with a defense verdict on September 30, 2025, after jurors found Uber negligent in its safety measures but ruled the negligence was not a substantial factor in the plaintiff's harm.
| Court | San Francisco County Superior Court (California state court) |
| Proceeding Number | JCCP No. 5188 |
| Judge | Hon. Ethan P. Schulman |
| First Trial Verdict | September 30, 2025, defense verdict for Uber |
| Relationship to MDL 3084 | Separate docket, separate case counts and separate orders |
The state verdict does not control the federal cases, and the federal verdicts do not control the state ones. Plaintiffs in either court generally work from the same factual record about Uber's safety practices.
Has the Uber Lawsuit Settled?
No. The Uber lawsuit has not reached a global settlement, and no fixed settlement amount or payout date exists as of October 31, 2026.
Individual outcomes so far show how wide the range is. No court-approved claims process for the whole MDL was reported in the sources reviewed, so any compensation to a plaintiff would come from a verdict or a negotiated settlement of that plaintiff's own case. Only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can estimate what a claim might be worth.
The first federal bellwether ended on February 5, 2026, when a Phoenix jury ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean, who said her driver assaulted her in November 2023. Jurors accepted the apparent agency theory, rejected the negligence and app-defect claims and awarded no punitive damages, and her lawyers had asked for roughly $144 million including punitive damages, according to NBC News and other reports. Uber said it would appeal, citing the jury instructions.
The second federal bellwether ended on April 20, 2026, when a Charlotte jury found that a driver committed battery against passenger Brianna Mensing during a 2019 ride and awarded $5,000. Judge Breyer had already ruled that Uber is a common carrier under North Carolina law. Uber said the award should "bring these cases back to reality" and that it saw strong grounds for appeal.
A third federal bellwether, Jane Doe QLF 001 v. Uber Technologies, settled confidentially in early October 2026, so no verdict or dollar figure exists for it. Reporting says Judge Breyer has criticized Uber for settling small groups of cases and urged a universal settlement, but no global agreement has been announced.
Uber Lawsuit Updates
Uber lawsuit updates and case status are tracked below from the October 2023 creation of MDL 3084 through October 31, 2026. The entries combine the Judicial Panel's monthly pending-case counts with the verdicts, orders and trial events reported in the federal and California proceedings. No global settlement has been announced, and the timeline lists every verified development since July 2025.
Uber Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Uber Settles the Third Federal Bellwether Before Openings
Uber confidentially settled Jane Doe QLF 001 v. Uber Technologies, the third federal bellwether in MDL 3084, in early October 2026, after jury selection in the Western District of Texas and before opening statements. The plaintiff alleged negligent hiring of a driver who assaulted her on a June 2020 ride, and Uber stipulated that it would not contest that the assault occurred, according to Harris Martin reporting.
MDL 3084 Reaches 4,916 Pending Actions
The Judicial Panel's October 1, 2026 report listed 4,916 actions pending in MDL 3084, out of 5,221 total actions in the litigation's history, the highest monthly figure on record in the reports reviewed.
Pending Cases Climb to 4,588
MDL 3084 held 4,588 pending actions and 4,890 total actions in the Judicial Panel's September 1, 2026 report.
Pending Cases Pass 4,300
The Panel's August 3, 2026 report counted 4,397 pending actions in MDL 3084, with 4,693 total actions since the MDL began.
The MDL Passes 3,900 Pending Actions
As of the Panel's July 1, 2026 report, 3,940 actions were pending in MDL 3084 and 4,230 had been filed in total.
June Report Shows 3,571 Pending Actions
The Judicial Panel's June 1, 2026 report listed 3,571 pending actions and 3,859 total actions for the Uber MDL.
Pending Cases Reach 3,437
A total of 3,437 actions were pending in MDL 3084 on the Panel's May 1, 2026 report, against 3,687 actions in the MDL's full history.
Charlotte Jury Awards $5,000 in the Second Federal Bellwether
A federal jury in Charlotte, North Carolina, found on April 20, 2026 that a driver committed battery against passenger Brianna Mensing during a 2019 ride and awarded $5,000, after Judge Breyer ruled that Uber is a common carrier under North Carolina law. Uber said it saw strong grounds for appeal.
Panel Transfers a Receipt Subpoena Dispute and Another Case Into the MDL
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the District of Colorado action over Express Digital Services and the Northern District of Illinois action McClain to Judge Breyer on April 2, 2026. The Panel recorded Uber's allegation that the MDL court found some plaintiffs submitted fraudulent ride receipts, including receipts built on respondents' websites.
Case Count Stands at 3,391 Pending Actions
MDL 3084 listed 3,391 pending actions on the Panel's April 1, 2026 report, with 3,602 total actions on the books.
March Report Counts 3,291 Pending Actions
The Judicial Panel's March 2, 2026 report showed 3,291 pending actions in MDL 3084 and 3,466 total actions.
Phoenix Jury Orders Uber to Pay $8.5 Million in the First Federal Bellwether
A federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean on February 5, 2026, finding the driver acted as Uber's apparent agent. The jury rejected the negligence and app-defect claims and awarded no punitive damages, and Uber said it would appeal.
Pending Cases Total 3,188
The Panel's February 2, 2026 report listed 3,188 pending actions in MDL 3084, with 3,337 in total.
The MDL Holds 3,078 Pending Actions
As of the Panel's January 5, 2026 report, MDL 3084 held 3,078 pending actions and 3,191 total actions.
December Report Shows 2,949 Pending Actions
The Judicial Panel counted 2,949 pending actions in MDL 3084 on December 2, 2025, out of 3,022 total actions.
Pending Cases Reach 2,783
On November 3, 2025, the Panel's report listed 2,783 pending actions in the Uber MDL and 2,847 total actions.
Pending Cases Pass 2,700
The Panel's October 1, 2025 report counted 2,721 pending actions in MDL 3084 and 2,784 total actions.
San Francisco Jury Finds Uber Not Liable in the First California State Trial
A San Francisco County Superior Court jury returned a defense verdict for Uber on September 30, 2025, in the first bellwether trial of California JCCP No. 5188 before Judge Ethan P. Schulman. Jurors found Uber negligent in its safety measures but not a substantial factor in the plaintiff's harm.
September Report Counts 2,583 Pending Actions
The Judicial Panel's September 2, 2025 report showed 2,583 pending actions in MDL 3084 and 2,643 total actions.
MDL 3084 Holds 2,513 Pending Actions
As of the Panel's August 1, 2025 report, 2,513 actions were pending in the Uber MDL, with 2,572 in total.
Pending Cases Total 2,359
The Panel's July 1, 2025 report listed 2,359 pending actions in MDL 3084 and 2,378 total actions, the earliest count in the reports reviewed.
Judicial Panel Creates MDL 3084 and Assigns It to Judge Breyer
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 79 actions pending in 13 districts into MDL 3084 on October 4, 2023, and assigned the litigation to Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California. The Panel rejected Uber's arguments that individual issues, state-law differences and its Terms of Use defeated centralization.
How to File an Uber Lawsuit
Follow these 5 steps to file an Uber lawsuit.
- Document the ride: Save your Uber trip history, receipt, payment record, the driver's name and vehicle details, and any messages, since these tie the incident to a ride arranged through the app.
- Get care and preserve your records: Medical and mental-health records document the harm, and support is available any time through the RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-4673.
- Decide whether to report to police: A police report can help, but a civil lawsuit does not require a report or a criminal conviction.
- Check your state's statute of limitations: Filing deadlines for sexual assault claims vary by state and by the victim's age, so confirm yours early because a missed deadline can bar a claim.
- Consult a sexual assault or mass-tort attorney: Most firms take these cases on contingency, and an attorney can explain how a claim would be filed in or moved into MDL 3084, including whether you can proceed under a pseudonym.
Answer a few questions and a case reviewer will follow up. Free, no obligation.
A case reviewer will follow up soon.
What Evidence Matters in the Uber Lawsuit?
The evidence that matters most in the Uber lawsuit is proof that the ride happened through the Uber app and that the incident occurred during it. Uber has challenged ride receipts in the MDL, and the Judicial Panel recorded Uber's allegation that the MDL court found some plaintiffs submitted fraudulent receipts, so authentic app records carry real weight.
Other records an attorney is likely to ask for include:
- Trip history and payment records from your Uber account or bank statements.
- Messages or calls with the driver or with Uber support.
- Medical, therapy and counseling records that document the harm and its timing.
- Any report you made to Uber, the police or another agency, and any reply.
Preserve these records early, since app histories can become harder to retrieve over time. Your attorney and the court decide whether any item is enough.
What Did Uber Allegedly Know About Sexual Assault Risks?
Uber allegedly knew about sexual assault risks among its drivers, according to plaintiffs who cite the company's own safety reports and complaint data as evidence of what it knew. The centralization order lists Uber's knowledge about the prevalence of assault as a common factual question, which the court has not yet decided for any plaintiff.
Uber disputes that its practices were inadequate and says its safety features and screening protect riders. In opposing centralization, Uber argued that each case turns on individual facts, that it plans to name drivers as third-party defendants, and that its Terms of Use blocked the request. The Panel rejected those arguments for centralization, though it did not decide the merits.
| Issue | Plaintiffs' position | Uber's position |
|---|---|---|
| Responsibility for drivers | Uber answers for drivers as agents or as a common carrier | Drivers are independent contractors, and Uber is not liable for their acts |
| Safety practices | Background checks, training and complaint handling were inadequate | Safety features and screening protect riders, and Uber says it keeps improving them |
| Common versus individual issues | Uber's corporate policies are common to all claims | Each assault involves a different driver, location and set of facts |
| Bellwether verdicts | Verdicts show juries will hold Uber liable | Awards were small or limited, and Uber says it will appeal |
Uber says it has appealed or plans to appeal the first two federal verdicts. Judge Breyer has pressed the company toward a broader resolution, and no court has made a finding that applies to every plaintiff.
How Does the Uber Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Uber lawsuit differs from related cases because people searching for it often mean one of several matters, and only MDL 3084 and the California JCCP cover passenger sexual assault. The others involve different parties, claims and remedies, and they do not share a docket or a claims process with this page's main case.
The Federal Trade Commission's case over Uber One is a government enforcement action in the Northern District of California. The FTC filed it in April 2025 and, joined by 21 states and the District of Columbia, filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2025 alleging enrollment without clear consent, charges after trials and a hard-to-use cancellation process. Uber says its sign-up and cancellation process is clear, simple and lawful, and no ruling or settlement was reported in the sources reviewed.
| Matter | Parties | Core allegation | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDL 3084 (this page's main tracker) | Individual passengers v. Uber | Uber failed to protect passengers from driver sexual assault | Active; bellwether phase, no global settlement |
| California JCCP No. 5188 | Individual passengers v. Uber | The same passenger-safety allegations in California state court | First trial ended in a defense verdict; see case status above |
| FTC v. Uber (Uber One) | FTC and 21 states and D.C. v. Uber | Deceptive subscription enrollment, billing and cancellation | Amended complaint filed December 2025; no ruling reported |
| Waymo v. Uber | Waymo v. Uber | Theft of self-driving car trade secrets | Settled February 2018 for an equity stake valued at about $245 million |
The Waymo case settled in February 2018, a few days into a jury trial, when Uber gave Waymo roughly a 0.34 percent equity stake. Uber did not admit wrongdoing, and the case has no link to passenger safety.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Uber lawsuit about?
The Uber lawsuit is about passengers who allege Uber drivers sexually assaulted or harassed them, and that Uber failed to screen drivers, train them and act on complaints. The main federal case is MDL 3084 in the Northern District of California.
Is the Uber lawsuit a class action?
No. The Uber lawsuit is a federal multidistrict litigation, so each plaintiff has an individual case consolidated for shared pretrial work, and no single class of claimants exists to join.
Has Uber settled the sexual assault lawsuit?
No. Uber has not reached a global settlement of the sexual assault lawsuit as of October 31, 2026. It has settled individual cases, including a third federal bellwether in early October 2026, but the terms were confidential and the rest of the MDL remains open.
How many cases are pending in the Uber lawsuit?
The Judicial Panel's October 1, 2026 report listed 4,916 pending cases in the Uber lawsuit, out of 5,221 total actions in MDL 3084's history, and the count has risen steadily since July 2025.
Did Uber win or lose the bellwether trials?
Uber lost the bellwether trials that reached a verdict in federal court, with awards of $8.5 million in February 2026 and $5,000 in April 2026, and it settled a third. It won the first California state trial in September 2025.
Is the FTC Uber One lawsuit part of the same Uber lawsuit?
No. The FTC Uber One lawsuit is a separate government case about subscription billing and cancellation, not passenger safety, and it has its own docket in the Northern District of California.
Can I still join the Uber lawsuit?
You may still be able to join the Uber lawsuit, because new cases were still being added as of October 2026. Whether you can depends on your facts and your state's statute of limitations, and only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can confirm it.