Uber Says It Will Enact Stricter Background Checks On Drivers After NYT Investigation and Plaintiff Jury Verdicts

The New York Times‘ Emily Steel reported yesterday that Uber is preparing to enact stricter background check policies for drivers following investigative reporting that raised concerns about the company’s screening standards.

The proposed changes signal a shift away from Uber’s long standing reliance on lookback periods that allowed certain felony convictions to fall outside eligibility determinations.

A December investigation by The New York Times reported that while Uber barred drivers convicted of murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and terrorism, the company approved drivers with many other serious criminal convictions in numerous states. In 22 states, individuals with convictions for violent felonies, child abuse, assault, and stalking were reportedly permitted to drive so long as those convictions were at least seven years old.

Uber is now expected to revise those policies to permanently disqualify drivers convicted of violent felonies, sexual offenses, and crimes involving child or elder abuse or endangerment, regardless of when those offenses occurred. The company is also considering changes to how it evaluates other offenses, including harassment, violations of restraining orders, and weapons related convictions. Uber has not provided a timeline for when the new rules will take effect.

Uber declined to comment directly on the anticipated revisions. In a statement, spokesperson Matt Kallman said, “Safety isn’t static, and our approach isn’t, either. We listen, we learn, we speak with experts and we evolve as the world changes. We believe that’s the hallmark of a healthy, effective safety culture.” Uber has consistently maintained that the vast majority of trips occur without incident.

Previously, Uber defended its seven year cutoff for felony convictions as a policy designed to balance public safety with rehabilitation opportunities. The company stated that the approach “strikes the right balance between protecting public safety and giving people with older criminal records a chance to work and rebuild their lives.”

The renewed scrutiny follows a series of reports examining Uber’s safety record. The New York Times reported that Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States approximately every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022. The reporting also alleged that company leadership was aware of the scope of complaints while safety innovations, including broader video recording measures, were debated internally.

Several criminal cases cited in public reporting intensified concerns. In one case, a San Diego driver with prior felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon was accused of sexually assaulting a passenger. Other incidents involved drivers in Florida who were later arrested and charged with sexual crimes against riders. These cases became focal points in broader debates about platform accountability and rider protections.

Uber’s background check reforms are unfolding as lawmakers consider stricter regulations. In Virginia, legislators introduced bills aimed at strengthening ride share screening standards. In California, proposals have sought to expand legal responsibility for ride hailing companies in cases involving sexual misconduct or assault. Uber has publicly supported certain legislative efforts tied to safety improvements.

The policy debate is also playing out in courtrooms. Earlier this year, a federal jury in Phoenix awarded $8.5 million to a passenger who alleged she was raped by an Uber driver. Although Uber successfully defended against some claims, the jury rejected arguments that the company bore no responsibility for driver misconduct. Uber has indicated it intends to appeal the verdict.

In other Uber litigation news, Bloomberg Law reports that a second federal trial is approaching within the nationwide multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving sexual assault allegations. The plaintiff in that case withdrew negligence and punitive damages claims, leaving a legal theory centered on whether Uber qualifies as a common carrier with heightened duties to protect passengers. The first federal trial and early California rulings have already shaped the legal landscape, signaling how juries and courts may evaluate corporate responsibility, safety practices, and the scope of duties owed to riders.