Are Uber and Lyft Liable When Their Drivers Sexually Assault Rideshare Passengers?

Tap a few buttons on the Uber or Lyft ridesharing app and within minutes, a car will appear to take you to your destination. When you climb into the back seat, you put your trust in the person behind the wheel. You trust, for example, that they know the rules of the road and how to drive. You trust that they'll get you to where you're going safely. And you trust that you won't end up being the victim of a crime, like sexual assault.

For the overwhelming majority of trips, all ends well. But in a disturbing number of rides—especially those involving female passengers—things end much differently. Both Uber and Lyft have reported thousands of passenger claims alleging sexual assault by their drivers. We explore those claims in this article.

After describing what sexual assault is, we turn our attention to the claims being made against Uber and Lyft, how those claims are being defended, and how courts are handling the pending sexual abuse lawsuits.

What Is Sexual Assault?

Sexual assault can take many forms. Some forms of sexual assault against rideshare passengers include:

• fondling or unwanted sexual touching
• forced oral sex, and
• non-consensual sexual penetration.

Sexual assault is a crime. Victims can report sexual assault to law enforcement, which can lead to criminal charges against the alleged offender.

Sexual assault is also a "tort," meaning wrongful conduct that causes harm to another. More specifically, it's a form of intentional tort called an assault and battery.

Sexual assault victims can sue their attackers in civil court, along with other businesses and institutions that failed to protect them. For example, a child who was sexually abused by a priest might sue the priest and the Catholic Church. Along those same lines, a rideshare passenger who's sexually assaulted by a driver might sue the driver and Uber or Lyft.

Learn more about the differences between criminal and civil assault cases.

Sexual Assault Claims Against Uber and Lyft

In December 2019, Uber released its first-ever safety report. The report said that Uber received nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assault from drivers and passengers in 2017 and 2018. Uber released its second safety report in July 2022, revealing that just over 3,800 alleged incidents of sexual assault were reported to the company in 2019 and 2020.

Lyft's first safety report came out in October 2021. According to the report, Lyft received more than 4,000 reports of sexual assaults during rides from 2017 to 2019. Lyft's second safety report, finalized in July 2024, showed that 2,651 sexual assaults were reported from 2020-2022.

Today, hundreds of sexual assault lawsuits against Uber and Lyft are ongoing.

Types of Claims Being Made

The people harmed in these cases (the "plaintiffs") claim that Uber and Lyft were negligent (careless) in hiring and supervising drivers, and that they inflicted emotional distress on victims of sexual assault.

Specifically, plaintiffs say the ridesharing services failed to properly screen drivers during the hiring process. Uber and Lyft, they allege, didn't fingerprint applicants or do criminal background checks, failed to use safety measures like video cameras in cars to prevent drivers from engaging in sexual misconduct, and concealed or ignored passenger complaints of inappropriate driver behavior.

Theories of false advertising and negligent misrepresentation also are common. Plaintiffs claim that the ridesharing companies hold themselves out as "safe ride" options while knowing their passengers are vulnerable to sexual assault and other injuries.

Finally, plaintiffs have argued that Uber and Lyft are responsible for the actions of their drivers under a legal rule called "respondeat superior," meaning "let the superior answer." Under this rule, an employer can be forced to pay for the harmful actions of an employee when those actions take place within the scope of the employee's job duties.

Plaintiffs have asked courts to compensate them for assault-related personal injury damages like medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. They've also asked courts to order Uber and Lyft to implement increased safety measures, such as video recordings of rides and better driver background checks. Finally, plaintiffs have asked courts to punish Uber and Lyft by imposing punitive damages.

Uber and Lyft Defenses

Among other defenses, Uber and Lyft argue that they're not responsible for sexual assaults of passengers for two main reasons:

• their drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and
• even if drivers are employees, they can't be held legally responsible for an employee's sexual misconduct.

Employees vs. independent contractors. Uber and Lyft have uniformly and strenuously argued that their drivers are independent contractors, not employees. Why does this distinction matter? As mentioned above, employers can be held legally responsible for injuries their employees cause, if those injuries happen within the course and scope of the employee's job duties and the employee's actions benefit the employer.

But the same isn't true for independent contractors. An independent contractor is someone who does work for an employer, but employers don't have the same degree of control over them as they do over employees. When an independent contractor's wrongdoing causes harm, the employer usually can't be held legally responsible.

No liability for employee sexual misconduct. In addition, Uber and Lyft have argued that even if a driver is found to be an employee, the company can't be held liable. Sexual assault, the companies say, isn't within the scope of a driver's job duties and isn't done to benefit Uber or Lyft.

A driver's status as an employee or independent contractor, and an employer's legal liability for its employee's actions, are (for the most part) questions of state employment law. While there's considerable uniformity across all states, each state gets to decide on the answers to questions like these. In other words, the fact that one state says an Uber driver is an employee doesn't require any other state to reach the same conclusion.

Sexual Assault Lawsuits in Federal and State Courts

Hundreds of sexual assault lawsuits against Uber and Lyft are ongoing in both federal and state courts. Given the sheer number of claims, most have been joined together, or "consolidated," for ease of handling and processing.

Uber and Lyft Defenses Meet Mixed Results

Uber and Lyft have had some success with their defenses. But they've suffered some losses, too.

For example, in Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 128 F.Supp.3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015), an Uber passenger was attacked by the driver with a knife during a trip in the District of Columbia. Uber claimed the driver wasn't its employee and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The court refused to dismiss the case.

Based on District of Columbia law, the court ruled that a jury could find the driver was an Uber employee subject to Uber's control. In addition, said the court, an assault that arises out of a job-related disagreement can fall within the scope of an employee's job duties. Here again, the court found enough to conclude that a jury might eventually find in favor of the passenger.

By contrast, in a case arising out of an alleged sexual assault by an Uber driver, the court reached the opposite result. Under Massachusetts law, an employer isn't on the hook for sexual assault committed by an employee because that kind of misconduct isn't within the scope of an employee's job duties. As a result, Uber couldn't be held liable for the passenger's injuries. (Memorandum & Order, Murray v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 20-11250-NMG (D. Mass.) (September 11, 2020).)

Thousands of Cases Have Been Consolidated

When there are hundreds or thousands of cases involving similar facts and injuries, courts sometimes "consolidate" them, meaning they're all assigned to one judge to take care of motions to dismiss, discovery, and other pretrial procedures. In federal court, these cases are called multidistrict litigation. State courts often have comparable procedures. In California, for instance, the process is called civil case coordination.

As of September 2025, more than 2,500 federal cases against Uber have been assigned to MDL No. 3084 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. California has coordinated all state court lawsuits against Uber in Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) 5188, and all state court lawsuits against Lyft in JCCP 5061.

Federal MDL activity. In the federal multidistrict litigation, the parties selected several cases for "bellwether trials." These are essentially test cases, meant to give the parties and lawyers in the remaining lawsuits some ideas about how their cases might turn out if they end up in trial. As part of the bellwether trial preparation process, the court dismissed some claims, but most remain.

The first federal MDL bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in December 2025. Other trials will follow.

Uber JCCP 5118. One JCCP 5118 bellwether trial concluded in late-September 2025. Plaintiff Jessica C. says that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her in December 2019. Uber, she claims, failed to take reasonable steps to protect passengers from driver assaults. Uber Senior Vice President Gus Fuldner told the jury that Uber passengers ride "at their own risk." The company says it implemented necessary safety measures, including criminal background checks. The jury is still deliberating.

Talk to a Rideshare Lawsuit Lawyer

If you've been assaulted during an Uber or Lyft ride, talk to a lawyer. The rideshare legal landscape is evolving quickly. Here's how to find an attorney who's right for you and your case.