Rideshare Sexual Assault Lawsuit (2026): Status & Claims
Thousands of passengers allege that rideshare companies, primarily Uber, failed to take adequate steps to prevent sexual assaults and harassment by their drivers. These claims are now centralized in a federal multidistrict litigation, and as of July 2026 the litigation is past its first two bellwether trials. This page explains the claims, the science and data, and the current status neutrally.
This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.
What the rideshare sexual assault litigation is about
The lawsuits allege that rideshare companies, primarily Uber, were negligent in how they screened, trained, and supervised drivers and how they responded to passenger reports of misconduct. According to the federal court overseeing the consolidated cases, the litigation centralizes passenger claims alleging that Uber failed to implement adequate safety precautions, such as background checks, training, in-app safety features, and complaint-response practices, which plaintiffs say resulted in passengers being sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers. The core legal questions include whether a rideshare company owes a duty to protect passengers from a driver's conduct and whether the driver acts as an agent of the company. How those questions are answered turns on the law of the state that governs a given case, and the MDL court has now answered the duty question under North Carolina law for one bellwether case, as described below. This is general information about the allegations and is not a finding that any company caused any individual's injury.
Note: These are allegations being tested in court. A lawsuit reflects what a plaintiff claims, not a final determination of liability, and outcomes differ from case to case.
What the data and regulators say
Uber has published three US Safety Reports, covering 2017 to 2018, 2019 to 2020, and 2021 to 2022, with the most recent released in August 2024. Uber reports publicly on its five most serious categories of sexual assault, which the company describes as its least subjective and most reliably classified data. The 2021 to 2022 report documented 2,717 reports across those five categories, and Uber states that the rate of the most serious incidents declined by roughly 44 percent from 2017 to 2022. After Congress passed Sami's Law in 2023, the US Government Accountability Office began issuing periodic rideshare and taxi safety reports. Its February 2024 report found that the available data cannot fully describe the extent of assaults in these industries, and its most recent report, published July 24, 2026, reached the same conclusion, stating that available data sources do not provide a full picture of the number of rideshare and taxi assaults against drivers and passengers from 2021 through 2025. These figures describe reported incidents and regulatory findings; they do not establish that any specific company is legally liable in any individual case.
The status of the litigation (as of July 2026)
Most federal Uber passenger cases are consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Charles R. Breyer. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the cases on October 4, 2023, because they share common questions about Uber's knowledge of assault reports, driver screening, training, and safety measures. As of July 2026, several thousand cases are pending in the MDL. The first bellwether trial concluded in early February 2026 with a jury awarding the plaintiff $8.5 million, though the jury declined to add punitive damages. Ahead of that second trial, in Pretrial Order No. 43 signed on April 10, 2026, Judge Breyer granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment and held that Uber qualifies as a common carrier under North Carolina law, which carries a heightened, non-delegable duty to transport passengers safely. The order states that the duty is breached when an Uber driver assaults a passenger, regardless of whether the driver is classified as Uber's employee or an independent contractor. That ruling interprets North Carolina law in one bellwether case and does not decide the question for other states. A second bellwether trial in April 2026 again found Uber liable but awarded only a few thousand dollars; further bellwether trials are scheduled for later in 2026. Bellwether trials are test cases meant to help both sides gauge how juries respond, and a separate federal proceeding has been organized to address Lyft passenger claims.
Note: MDL status, trial dates, verdicts, and any settlement discussions change over time. Confirm the current posture through the court before relying on any figure here.
Who may be involved
The people generally involved in this litigation are rideshare passengers who report being sexually assaulted, raped, or sexually harassed by a driver during or in connection with a trip arranged through an app such as Uber or Lyft. Cases involve passengers across many states and a range of dates. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including what happened, when and where it happened, what was reported, and the law of the relevant state. Because these matters are sensitive, courts and attorneys typically handle them with confidentiality protections, and many filings use anonymized names. Nothing here suggests that every passenger has a claim or that any outcome is assured.
Deadlines and why they matter
Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, which are legal deadlines to file suit. These deadlines vary by state and by the type of claim, and some states have enacted special windows for certain sexual assault claims. Because the deadline depends on your state and your facts, there is no single national filing deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. Missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim, so people who believe they may be affected often act promptly rather than waiting. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can evaluate which deadline applies to a specific situation.
How to evaluate your options
If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the applicable law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim; this page cannot do that. It can help to gather any records you have, such as trip receipts or app history, the date and location of the trip, any report you made to the company or police, and any related medical records. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation, and many work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation to file.
Harmed by a product or exposure? Speak with an attorney about your options
If you or a loved one may have been harmed, you can speak with an attorney about your legal options at no cost. Whether you have a claim depends on the specific facts. This is attorney advertising, not a guarantee that you qualify or of any particular outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the rideshare sexual assault lawsuit about?
It involves claims by passengers, primarily against Uber, alleging the company was negligent in screening, training, and supervising drivers and in responding to safety complaints, which plaintiffs say led to passengers being sexually assaulted or harassed. The core question is whether a rideshare company can be held responsible for a driver's conduct.
Is there an Uber MDL, and what is the case number?
Yes. Most federal Uber passenger cases are consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, in the Northern District of California before Judge Charles R. Breyer. The cases were centralized on October 4, 2023.
Did a court rule that Uber is a common carrier?
In one case. In Pretrial Order No. 43, signed April 10, 2026, the MDL court held that Uber qualifies as a common carrier under North Carolina law and owes riders a heightened, non-delegable duty to transport them safely, which is breached when a driver assaults a passenger regardless of whether the driver is an employee or an independent contractor. That order interprets North Carolina law in one bellwether case; other states may treat the question differently.
Is there a settlement?
As of July 2026 there is no announced global settlement in the Uber MDL. The first two bellwether trials have concluded: the first, in February 2026, resulted in an $8.5 million verdict for the plaintiff, and the second, in April 2026, again found Uber liable but awarded only a few thousand dollars. Additional trials are scheduled. Litigation status can change, so confirm the current posture before relying on any figure.
Who qualifies to file a claim?
There is no automatic qualification. Whether a person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including what happened, where and when, what was reported, and the law of the relevant state. A licensed attorney can evaluate eligibility.
How much are rideshare sexual assault cases worth?
There is no guaranteed amount. Any recovery depends on the individual facts and varies widely; the early bellwether verdict reflects one jury's decision in one case and does not set a value for others. No outcome is promised.
Is there a deadline to file?
Yes, but it varies. Statutes of limitations differ by state and by the type of claim, and some states have special windows for sexual assault claims. There is no single national deadline, so the applicable deadline should be confirmed with an attorney in the relevant state.
Are these cases handled confidentially?
Courts and attorneys typically treat these sensitive matters with confidentiality protections, and many court filings use anonymized names to protect survivors' privacy.
Do I have to pay upfront?
Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation and work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. Confirm the specific terms with any attorney you consult.
Updates
Corrected the Government Accountability Office citation (the assault-data finding is from its February 2024 report, not September 2024), added the GAO's July 2026 report as the current federal finding, added the MDL court's April 10, 2026 ruling that Uber is a common carrier under North Carolina law with a non-delegable duty to passengers, and made the as-of date consistent across the page.
Sources and References
- In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer, case page(uscourts.gov).gov
- Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 3084 Transfer Order centralizing Uber passenger sexual assault cases (Oct. 2023)(uscourts.gov).gov
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Judge Charles R. Breyer, Uber MDL information page(uscourts.gov).gov
- Uber, US Safety Report (covering 2017-2018, 2019-2020, and 2021-2022; latest released Aug. 2024)(uber.com)
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, Ridesharing and Taxi Safety report (Sept. 2024), finding available data cannot fully capture the extent of assaults(gao.gov).gov
- U.S. House Committee on Oversight, request for information from Uber on safety protocols to prevent sexual assault(house.gov).gov
- CNN, report on the first Uber sexual assault bellwether verdict ($8.5 million, Feb. 2026)(cnn.com)
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, Rideshare and Taxi Safety: Information on Assault Data, Safety Features, and Background Checks, GAO-26-108552 (July 24, 2026)(gao.gov)
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, Ridesharing and Taxi Safety: Information on Assaults against Drivers and Passengers, GAO-24-106742 (Feb. 22, 2024)(gao.gov)
- In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, Pretrial Order No. 43: Order Regarding WHB 823 Pretrial Motions (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2026) (ECF No. 5809), holding Uber is a common carrier under North Carolina law owing a non-delegable duty to passengers(archive.org)