On February 5, 2026, a U.S. jury reached a verdict in Phoenix, Arizona, on the first bellwether Uber/ ride share sexual assault case that made it to trial. The jury ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million after finding the company liable. The lawsuit, brought by plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, stated that she was sexually assaulted by her Uber driver when she was 19 and that Uber failed to take the appropriate actions to prevent a known issue. Uber’s defense was that the driver is not an employee of Uber, but rather an independent contractor. However, the jury found that the driver was an agent of Uber, thus Uber could be held responsible for his actions. Dean was awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages but was not awarded punitive damages. Uber is planning to appeal the case.
This case is one of more than 3,000 similar lawsuits alleging both strict and vicarious liability, negligence, and defective marketing that led to the sexual assault of passengers against Uber–a situation that sexual assault lawyers allege Uber could have prevented. The verdict of this case validates the thousands of survivors who came forward and sets the precedent for future Uber sexual assault cases that go to trial.
What are the Claims Against Uber?
Uber is being sued by over 3,000 passengers who allege that they were sexually assaulted, harassed, and/or harmed in other ways by their Uber driver. The victims allege that Uber was negligent by failing to implement appropriate safety measures to protect passengers, despite being aware of the high volume of reported sexual assaults that occurred in Uber vehicles. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that Uber failed to adequately screen drivers by not conducting background checks outside the U.S., not asking for a resume, and not asking for proof of previous employment. They also claim that Uber failed to respond to previous complaints made by other passengers. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that Uber used defective marketing to depict Uber as a safe alternative for impaired driving due to intoxication or disability.
Defective Marketing Claims Against Uber
Companies have a duty to warn the public of known risks and to reduce risks that are inherent to the product’s intended use. When a company’s labels and marketing tactics fail to warn the public of dangers, a claim of defective marketing can be made. In Uber’s case, the company explicitly markets its product to women as a safe alternative when drinking or traveling alone. However, plaintiffs allege that the company fails to warn its passengers of the known risk of sexual assault, harassment, or other types of harm that could occur when traveling with an Uber driver. According to a New York Times investigation of sealed court records, Uber was aware of over 400,000 reports of sexual assault between 2017 and 2022, which exceeds the number of reports that the company publicly disclosed. The investigation into the number of Uber sexual assault reports shows that Uber was well aware of the risk to its passengers and that it should have been properly warning its passengers of the potential risk. In the case of Jaylynn Dean, the jury did not return their verdict on the basis of her defective marketing claims. They found liability based upon the apparent agency relationship between the driver and Uber. Defective marketing claims, however, are not precluded from being litigated in future cases by this verdict.
Uber Claims to Make Progress in Safety Measures
Uber claims that, over the past ten years, the company has improved its ride safety features. The company has implemented features such as real-time ID checks, driver selfie requirements, an in-app emergency button, and an option to connect with a live ADT agent for the duration of the trip. Despite adding these safety mechanisms, there are many other features that Uber has not yet implemented. One safety measure Uber has not yet enacted is the requirement of video cameras or dashboard cameras in every vehicle. Having video cameras in all Uber vehicles would allow the company to monitor its drivers and the safety of its passengers. In addition to requiring video cameras, Uber could set up an alert system that sends a message to Uber when a vehicle goes to a destination with a passenger and remains idle for an extended period of time.
Additionally, Uber offers a woman-to-woman rider-pilot option in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico, that they could implement in the United States. The woman-to-woman option allows women passengers to set a preference within the Uber app to only be picked up by women drivers. The feature also allows women drivers to set a preference to only pick up women passengers. Uber has stated that selecting this preference does not guarantee that the driver or passenger will be a woman, but the feature increases the likelihood that women will be paired in the app. Despite having this feature in other countries, Uber has only recently begun rolling it out in the U.S. Currently, only 26 cities in the U.S. have access to the woman-to-woman preference feature.
Author
