Ripple Effects Beyond the Courtroom
The implications could extend well beyond the 3,100-case MDL.
Aaron Davis of Davis Goldman PLLC, who sues rideshare companies on behalf of injured plaintiffs, said the apparent agency ruling may influence auto collision cases often steered into private arbitration.
“Uber and Lyft try to require that auto accident claims be arbitrated,” Davis said. “Once you’re in arbitration, proving apparent agency becomes much harder.”
The verdict, he suggested, could reshape that calculus. Plaintiffs historically wary of arbitration — where vicarious liability claims can stall — may now see new leverage.
“Whereas it used to be that you don’t want to arbitrate because you may end up with no vicarious liability, this verdict may change the game,” Davis said.
Settlement Calculus Begins
Gupta said the outcome strengthens the argument that Uber may need to consider a broader resolution strategy, including a potential global settlement.
Mass tort litigation, he said, is designed for precisely this kind of dispute — where companywide evidence about foreseeability, internal knowledge and safety practices can be applied across thousands of claims.
“People do find ways to reach global resolutions,” Gupta said. “The system is capable of that.”
Alexandra Lahav, a tort scholar at Cornell Law School, described the verdict as a meaningful data point — but not a final answer.
“The trial was meant to test claims and defenses,” she said. “It’s useful information that the parties will likely use in negotiating a global settlement.”
Still, Lahav cautioned that the MDL remains in early innings. She pointed to a separate California state case in September where a jury cleared Uber, finding its alleged negligence was not a substantial factor in a passenger’s assault.
“There have been two trials so far, and they’ve gone different ways,” she said. “It’s likely the parties will need to litigate further before reaching any aggregate settlement.”
“It’s an important victory,” she added, “but it isn’t the end.”
