The Uber $8.5M Bellwether Verdict has landed like a thunderclap in sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged driver sexual assaults — and attorneys say one key jury finding may echo far beyond a single courtroom.
After a three-week trial and roughly 12 hours of deliberations, an Arizona federal jury on Feb. 5 ordered Uber Technologies Inc. to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages to a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a driver in 2023.
The jury stopped short of awarding punitive damages and declined to find Uber negligent regarding rider safety. Still, it held the company liable under a different and potentially far-reaching theory: that the driver acted as Uber’s “apparent agent.”
The damages award was far below the $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages the plaintiff had sought. But legal observers say the implications may loom much larger than the dollar figure suggests.
A Pivotal Theory: Apparent Agency
The multidistrict litigation — consolidating more than 3,100 cases — alleges Uber has known since 2014 that some drivers using its platform sexually assaulted passengers and failed to implement stronger safety measures, including in-app cameras and more rigorous background checks.
Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler LLP called the verdict historic.
“By any measure, this is a landmark verdict,” Gupta said, noting it marks the first time a rideshare platform has been held responsible in this MDL, one of the most closely watched mass tort proceedings in the country.
Gupta emphasized the jury’s apparent agency finding — a doctrine under which a company may be held liable if a worker appears to act on its behalf — could serve as a blueprint for future trials.
“Not many observers were focused on that theory,” he said. “But plaintiffs have multiple arrows in their quiver.”
In practical terms, he added, the verdict signals that juries may be willing to look past Uber’s long-standing argument that its drivers are independent contractors and instead scrutinize how the company structures and oversees its platform.
“It means a federal jury was willing to cut through technicalities,” Gupta said. “That should get attention in corporate boardrooms.”
