FOLLOW US

A federal judge in California has refused Uber’s request to postpone the first bellwether trial in sweeping litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, clearing the way for jury selection to begin as scheduled next week.

In a brief order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Uber’s bid to delay the trial, which is set to start on January 13. The judge said he reviewed Uber’s motion, supporting filings, opposition papers and the applicable law and “hereby DENIES the motion.”

The ruling keeps intact the timeline for the first of roughly 20 bellwether trials in a multidistrict litigation that accuses Uber of failing to adopt safety measures despite knowing for years that some drivers had sexually assaulted passengers.

Uber had argued that the trial should be delayed because a public advertising campaign run by Consumer Attorneys of California had the potential to contaminate the jury pool. The company said the campaign falsely portrayed Uber as refusing to make safety improvements and distorted reporting by The New York Times.

“These statements exacerbate the prejudice Uber already faced in parallel JCCP bellwether proceedings,” Uber told the court in its December request.

Uber said the campaign misrepresented a Times article published in August 2025, shortly before a related California state court bellwether trial, and claimed the ads showed plaintiffs’ lawyers were attempting to influence public opinion rather than litigate in court.

“The timing of these ads makes clear that plaintiffs’ counsel intends on litigating this case in the public sphere rather than at trial — working severe prejudice on Uber in the process,” the company argued.

Uber also asked the court to block further publication of the ads, expand jury questioning and allow subpoenas of Consumer Attorneys of California, which is not a party to the case. The company said several plaintiffs’ lawyers serve on the group’s board and claimed the campaign relied on sealed information disclosed in violation of a protective order.

The ride-hailing giant further objected to language in an early version of the campaign that said a “sexual crime was reported to Uber almost every 8 minutes,” arguing the statistic was misleading.

“The vast majority of the reports involve non-criminal behavior, such as flirting, staring or leering, or making comments about a person’s appearance,” Uber said. “Thus, many of the reports, even if true, do not involve sexual crimes.”

According to Uber, it sent a cease-and-desist letter that led the group to remove the “sexual crimes” phrasing.

Plaintiffs countered that Uber’s request was an eleventh-hour attempt to block the first bellwether trial and delay accountability. They said juror questionnaires had already been finalized and that Judge Breyer has broad authority to address potential bias during voir dire.

They also argued that Uber’s request amounted to an unconstitutional gag order.

The first bellwether plaintiff, Jaylynn Dean, alleges she was raped by her Uber driver in Tempe, Arizona, in 2023.

In a statement after the ruling, Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler LLP, who represents Consumer Attorneys of California, praised the decision.

“This swift ruling makes clear that Uber fundamentally miscalculated by asking the court to censor protected political speech and interfere in an ongoing ballot campaign,” Gupta said. “The First Amendment does not bend to corporate pressure, and the court rightly refused to let Uber use the legal system to silence its critics.”

The federal bellwether follows a California state court trial that ended in September, where jurors found Uber negligent on safety issues but concluded its conduct was not a substantial factor in causing harm.

Judge Breyer previously dismissed certain fraud and product liability claims in the MDL, ruling that plaintiffs had not shown Uber’s marketing was misleading for failing to warn that intoxicated riders face higher risks of sexual assault.

The case is In re: Uber Technologies Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, case number 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.