Uber Technologies Inc. faces increased legal pressure after an Arizona federal jury ordered the company to pay $8.5 million to a passenger who said she was sexually assaulted by one of its drivers, marking the first bellwether trial result in a sweeping multidistrict litigation over rider safety.
The verdict, delivered after a three-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is being viewed by attorneys and legal observers as a key test case for more than 3,100 similar lawsuits consolidated in the MDL.
Jurors concluded Uber was not negligent in its overall safety practices. Still, they found the company legally responsible for the driver’s actions under an “apparent agency” theory, meaning the driver appeared to act on Uber’s behalf. That finding allowed the jury to hold the company liable and award $8.5 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were granted. The plaintiff had sought roughly $144 million.
The broader litigation alleges Uber has known for years that some drivers preyed on passengers and failed to adopt stronger safeguards, such as cameras or tighter background checks.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say the apparent agency ruling could carry weight far beyond this single case.
“By any measure, this is a landmark verdict,” said Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler LLP, who represents riders in the litigation. “It’s the first time a rideshare platform has been held responsible in this multidistrict litigation, and it’s one of the most closely watched multidistrict litigations or mass torts in the country.”
Gupta said public concern over passenger safety has grown, adding that the outcome signals significant exposure for the company.
“It should be no surprise to Uber that it’s facing the possibility of very significant liability across the country,” he said. “Advocates have been criticizing Uber for [ignoring] safety for years, and so this is the kind of decision that hopefully will make those in the corporate boardroom take notice that they’re facing a real threat here.”
He added that the apparent agency theory had not been the primary focus for many observers but could now become central in future trials.
“[Apparent agency is] a theory that not many people focused on when they were observing this litigation,” Gupta said. “That doesn’t preclude a future jury on finding liability on the other theories, it just shows that the plaintiffs have multiple arrows in their quiver.”
According to Gupta, the decision shows juries may look past Uber’s independent-contractor structure when assessing responsibility.
“It means that a federal jury was willing to scrutinize Uber’s responsibility and the decisions that it makes for safety on its platform,” he said.
Other attorneys say the ruling may influence cases outside the courtroom as well. Aaron Davis of Davis Goldman PLLC noted that many crash or injury disputes are pushed into arbitration.
“Uber and Lyft try to require that auto accident claims be arbitrated,” he said. “The disincentive for customers arbitrating is that once you get arbitration, it’s difficult to prove apparent agency, so this verdict may actually have greater implications for the types of cases that don’t actually enter a courtroom because they’re being privately arbitrated by contract.”
He added: “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 in that respect, which I love.”
Legal scholars say the award may shape settlement talks, though the litigation remains early. Cornell Law School professor Alexandra Lahav said the result gives both sides data points for negotiations.
“The trial was supposed to be a test case of the various claims and defenses, and so it is a useful piece of information that the parties will use, likely in negotiating a global settlement,” she said.
She noted that Uber previously won a separate state court case in California involving similar allegations, showing outcomes can vary.
“There have been two trials to date, and they have come out different ways,” she said. “I think it is likely that the parties will need to litigate a little more before coming to an aggregate settlement.”
“It is an important victory, but it also isn’t the end of this litigation.”
A second bellwether trial is scheduled to begin this spring in North Carolina federal court, which could further shape how the remaining claims proceed.
