Uber Technologies is confronting a legal storm over its handling of sexual assault and harassment by drivers, with new lawsuits, aggressive defense strategies, and shareholder claims painting a picture of a company that prioritized growth over passenger safety. An investigation by The New York Times reviewed about a dozen lawsuits from riders who say they were sexually assaulted or harassed, exposing tactics that critics describe as victim-blaming. Meanwhile, shareholders have sued the company's board for alleged 'serial' compliance failures, and a federal judge has signaled that the first trials will proceed.
A Company Under Siege
The legal pressure on Uber has intensified in recent months. The New York Times investigative reporter Emily Steel examined lawsuits revealing how Uber's lawyers have fought claims by scrutinizing survivors' clothing, sexual history, and behavior — a strategy summarized by one lawsuit as asking, 'What were you wearing?' This approach, according to legal experts, is designed to shift blame onto victims and discourage them from pursuing justice. Yet it has drawn sharp criticism from advocates who say it re-victimizes survivors and ignores Uber's own failures to screen and monitor drivers.
At the same time, Bloomberg reported that Uber has tightened U.S. driver background checks as sexual assault cases mount. The company now conducts annual criminal background checks and uses continuous monitoring through third-party services, a change from its previous policy of only checking drivers at application. But critics argue the new measures are reactive, not preventive, and that Uber delayed action for years.
The Legal Strategy: Blame the Victim
According to the NYT investigation, Uber's legal defense often hinges on attacking the credibility of the person making the accusation. In one case, attorneys subpoenaed years of text messages, medical records, and even social media posts to paint a picture of the plaintiff's personal life. Another defense tactic involves arguing that the rider did not report the assault promptly, or that they voluntarily entered the vehicle, or that the alleged incident never happened because the driver's account shows a different route.
'It is a classic rape-culture defense — put the survivor on trial,' said Sarah Levy, a civil rights attorney not involved in the cases.
These tactics are not unique to Uber, but the scale of the problem is staggering. Since 2018, Uber has disclosed more than 5,000 reports of sexual assault in its U.S. rides, though the company claims those reports include everything from unwanted sexual advances to rape. The company has also faced allegations that it undercounts incidents by quietly settling lawsuits under non-disclosure agreements.
Background Checks: Too Little, Too Late?
In response to mounting public pressure, Uber has announced enhanced background measures, including continuous monitoring of drivers through a service called Checkr. Bloomberg notes that the move comes as several states and cities are considering stricter regulations. However, the company's history of inadequate vetting remains a central issue in court. In a video investigation by The New York Times, it was revealed that Uber had cleared violent felons to drive, raising questions about its background check process.
- Annual re-screening of all U.S. drivers
- Real-time alerts for criminal arrests and convictions
- Expanded use of federal and state databases
But these reforms came after numerous incidents. For instance, a driver with a prior conviction for assault was able to remain on the platform for months before being caught. Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that Uber's pattern of 'noncompliance' is endemic, not accidental.
Shareholders Strike Back
A shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in Delaware alleges that Uber's board ignored red flags about sexual assault and covered up the true scale of the problem. The lawsuit, reported by Forbes and Reuters, claims the board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to address 'serial' compliance failures and by allowing a corporate culture where safety took a backseat to expansion. The suit references a 2020 report showing that Uber's safety team was understaffed and that executives dismissed warnings from internal researchers.
Law.com reported on the shareholder suit, quoting the complaint: 'Noncompliance is part of Uber's corporate culture.' The suit seeks to force the board to implement stronger oversight and to hold directors financially liable for the resulting damages. Experts say this case could set a precedent for how boards are held accountable for workplace safety in the gig economy.
Courts Push Back
Meanwhile, judges are growing impatient with Uber's delay tactics. A federal judge in San Francisco recently selected the third case to go to trial for sexual assault allegations, stating, 'Get the message, we're going ahead.' The judge rejected Uber's motions to consolidate or stay proceedings, signaling that the company will face juries. The first trial is expected to begin next year, and it could force Uber to pay substantial damages or settle on less favorable terms.
Implications and Outlook
The confluence of legal battles puts Uber at a crossroads. The company has already spent over $150 million on safety initiatives, but plaintiffs say that's a fraction of what it would cost to truly remediate the harm. The shareholder lawsuit, if successful, could oust board members and force structural changes. The criminal referral is also possible, though no charges have been filed against executives.
For survivors, the fight is about more than compensation. As one plaintiff stated, 'I want Uber to change. I don't want another woman to go through what I did.' But with courts now setting trial dates, the world will finally see the evidence behind more than 5,000 allegations — and the legal strategy of a company that once promised to make transportation 'as safe as a locked room.'
