Skip to content
As Uber faces thousands of sexual assault lawsuits consolidated in federal court, a quieter but closely watched question is emerging. Will litigation involving alleged sexual abuse by Lyft drivers follow a similar path into the national spotlight?
The scope of the Lyft litigation is currently much smaller. Federal court records show at most a couple of dozen sexual assault lawsuits filed by former Lyft passengers, compared with roughly 3,500 pending Uber cases. Still, survivors and their attorneys argue that even a single assault is one too many. For plaintiffs who say they were harmed by Lyft drivers, the smaller number of cases does not lessen the seriousness of the allegations or the need for accountability.
This is why plaintiffs have asked [PDF] the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all federal Lyft passenger sexual assault lawsuits into a single proceeding. The JPML is scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 29 in San Diego, where a panel of federal judges will decide whether the cases should be transferred to one U.S. District Court judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.
The lawsuits raise similar claims that Lyft failed to take basic steps to protect passengers, particularly women, from sexual assault by drivers. Plaintiffs allege they were harassed, groped, abducted, or raped after using the Lyft app, and argue that inadequate safety measures and background checks created foreseeable risks.
Supporters of consolidation point to the Uber litigation as a clear example of why centralized proceedings matter. Roughly 3,000 Uber passenger sexual assault cases have already been consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California. The first bellwether trial in the MDL is currently underway in an Arizona court. (The plaintiff alleges she was raped in Tempe, near Phoenix.) Plaintiffs in the Lyft cases argue that without consolidation, courts risk duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings, and unnecessary delays.
Lyft has opposed the request, citing a long running mass tort proceeding already centralized in California state court. According to the company, thousands of cases are being handled through that process, and much of the discovery has already been completed. Lyft contends that creating a separate federal MDL would be inefficient and duplicative.
If the JPML grants the plaintiffs’ request, all federal Lyft sexual assault lawsuits would move forward together under one judge. Each case would remain an individual claim, requiring survivors to prove that Lyft’s alleged negligence directly caused their injuries. The assigned judge would likely initiate bellwether trials, which are designed to test how juries respond to common evidence and arguments that may appear across the litigation.
Those bellwether outcomes could influence settlement discussions or shape how remaining cases proceed. If no global resolution is reached, individual lawsuits would eventually return to their original courts for trial.
Whether the Lyft litigation grows to rival Uber’s in size remains uncertain. But for survivors pushing for consolidation, the goal is not headlines or numbers. It is a legal process that treats sexual abuse claims seriously, allows patterns of conduct to be examined, and gives harmed passengers a fair opportunity to seek justice.
