jury deliberates in first federal Uber sexual assault bellwether trial; plaintiff seeks $144 million in damages

Bloomberg Law reported yesterday that a federal jury in Phoenix has begun deliberations after closing arguments concluded in a closely watched civil lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc., a case expected to shape how sexual assault claims involving rideshare platforms are litigated nationwide.

The trial was held at the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse and marks the first federal bellwether case to reach a jury in the Uber sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The lawsuit centers on allegations that a young woman was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a late night ride in November 2023, when she was 19 years old.

(While the plaintiff has been identified by name in public court records and media coverage, SurvivorsRights.com follows a policy of keeping survivors’ identities out of the spotlight, instead focusing reporting on institutional accountability rather than individual exposure.)

During closing arguments, a plaintiff’s attorney argued that Uber failed to exercise reasonable care to protect riders from foreseeable risks. Jurors were told that Uber had long been aware through internal data, law enforcement warnings, and public reporting that women traveling alone late at night, particularly after drinking, face an elevated risk of sexual assault. According to the plaintiff, Uber did not adequately warn riders of those risks and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to reduce them.

A central theme of the plaintiff’s case was alleged defective design of the Uber app. The jury heard arguments that Uber failed to require automatic audio or video recording during rides and did not offer a women preferred driver option at the time of the incident. The plaintiff contends Uber knew such measures could deter misconduct and reduce risk but chose not to implement them, prioritizing growth and convenience over safety.

The jury also heard arguments related to apparent agency. The plaintiff claims Uber’s branding, marketing, and control over the ride experience made it reasonable for passengers to believe drivers are acting on Uber’s behalf, potentially making the company legally responsible for the driver’s conduct.

Uber’s defense rejected those claims, arguing the alleged assault was not foreseeable and that the company acted reasonably. Defense attorneys emphasized that the driver passed background checks, completed nearly 10,000 rides, received overwhelmingly positive ratings, and underwent sexual misconduct training. They argued the driver acted outside the scope of any role connected to Uber and violated company policies, severing legal responsibility.

Uber also pointed to in app safety tools, including emergency features and optional recording, and argued no app design change would have prevented what occurred. The company cited more than $1.3 billion in safety investments and referenced its Safety Risk Assessed Dispatch system, which it claims has reduced incidents across the platform.

In addition to liability, jurors were asked to consider damages. The plaintiff is seeking $24 million in compensatory damages for past and future psychological harm and approximately $120 million in punitive damages, arguing a substantial award is necessary to change corporate behavior.

The case is the first bellwether trial arising from nearly 3,000 federal lawsuits consolidated in the Northern District of California before Charles Breyer. Although centralized in California for pretrial proceedings, the case was transferred back to Arizona for trial because that is where the alleged assault occurred. Uber previously prevailed in a separate state court trial in California.

Legal observers say the verdict could influence how future juries evaluate app design, corporate warnings, and rideshare responsibility for driver conduct. A plaintiff verdict could increase pressure on Uber and similar companies to settle remaining cases or implement additional safety measures, while a defense verdict could embolden companies to continue contesting claims individually.