July 9, 2026
Authored by Attorney Jeff Keiser
Before we get to the newsletter, I’ve put together a special report that I think you’ll find insightful. I hope you enjoy it. – Craig
We detailed 7 key strategies to identify coached claimants. Learn how coaching rings exploit weaknesses and circumvent these defenses, based on direct interviews with offshore lead sellers.
No email. No sign up. Read instantly.
In the last section, we discussed how motion practice sets the boundaries of what the jury can see. Now we get to what happens when those boundaries meet a real jury.
The first Uber bellwether trial was held in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, and involved plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, who alleged she was sexually assaulted and raped by an Uber driver after a late-night ride in 2023. According to trial coverage, Dean was intoxicated when she was picked up by an Uber, by a driver that assaulted her in the backseat.
A key evidentiary theme in the trial was Uber’s internal safety infrastructure, including testimony and exhibits reported in coverage indicating that Uber’s system had flagged the ride as elevated risk but still allowed it to proceed. Plaintiffs used this to support their broader theory that Uber’s knowledge of risk at scale was not just historical—it was operational.
The jury found Uber liable under an apparent agency theory, meaning the driver was treated as acting with sufficient connection to Uber to impose liability. Importantly, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages, but no punitive damages.
That combination is doing real work in the MDL. The $8.5 million compensatory award establishes that juries are willing to assign significant value to platform-based negligence theories when the facts are strong and the narrative is clean. But the absence of punitive damages signals something equally important: juries may be reluctant to escalate these cases into findings of corporate moral recklessness. From a settlement perspective, this is the first true anchor point in the litigation. It doesn’t set “the value” of all cases, but it sets a credible upper range that both sides now have to price into their thinking.
The question after that verdict is not whether Uber can be liable. It’s whether that result is stable—or whether the next bellwether changes the shape of the range.
Craig H. Alinder, Vice President
Office: 802-664-4201 | Email: craig@legalcalls.com
Legal Calls, 2108 N Street, Suite 4809, Sacramento, CA 95816, (877) 853-5801