Rideshare MDL Part 4 of 5 + Fraud prevention report

Rideshare MDL Updates

Part 4 of 5: The Second Bellwether Was Only the Beginning — The Next Uber Trial May Tell Us More

The second Uber bellwether verdict answered one question, but it raised others. After two consecutive plaintiff verdicts, the debate is not about whether Uber can be held responsible for passenger assaults. The more important questions are how expansive that responsibility may be, what evidence juries will be allowed to hear, and how much of Uber’s safety history will become part of individual trials.

That issue is already becoming the central fight as the MDL moves toward its next bellwether trial. Plaintiffs’ theory has remained consistent. They are not simply arguing that individual drivers committed criminal acts. They are arguing that Uber built a business model around a predictable risk and made choices that failed to adequately protect passengers. The evidence plaintiffs want to present is designed to connect Uber’s corporate decisions to that risk.

Two examples illustrate where the next phase of the litigation is headed. The first is Uber’s failure to implement a Woman-Preferred feature. Plaintiffs intend to present evidence that Uber had product options available that could have reduced the risk of sexual assault but chose not to meaningfully implement them. Uber is expected to argue that this evidence should be limited in the upcoming trial, particularly because the plaintiff was a guest rider rather than the person who held the Uber account. Plaintiffs argue that the distinction is irrelevant because the person requesting the ride could have selected a safer matching option if Uber had made one available. The importance of this evidence is not simply whether a Woman-Preferred option existed. The larger argument is that Uber made product and business decisions while aware that female passengers faced risks. Plaintiffs are attempting to show that these were not random criminal acts occurring outside Uber’s control, but foreseeable risks connected to decisions Uber made about its platform.

The same fight is developing around Uber’s marketing practices. Plaintiffs continue to argue that Uber’s marketing directed toward intoxicated passengers, particularly women leaving bars or nightlife settings, is relevant because it shows Uber understood the circumstances in which passengers were using the platform. Uber is expected to seek limits on that evidence, again pointing to the guest rider issue. Plaintiffs’ position is that if Uber encouraged passengers to rely on the service after drinking, it cannot then argue that intoxicated passengers were an unforeseeable risk.

Those evidence disputes highlight the battle taking place in the MDL. Plaintiffs are trying to tell a company-wide story. They want juries to understand the decisions Uber made before and after assaults occurred, including product choices, safety policies, driver screening, and the company’s response to reported incidents. Uber’s strategy has been to narrow the focus and argue that each case must be evaluated based on its own facts.

The number of cases continues to grow as these issues are being litigated. As of June 25, 2026, there were 3,427 cases pending in the federal MDL, with approximately 778 additional Uber sexual assault cases pending in California coordinated proceedings. The size of the inventory is one reason these evidence fights matter so much. The decisions being made in individual bellwether trials will influence how thousands of other claims are evaluated.

The court is also beginning to streamline the process. The prior Daubert rulings and motions in limine decisions from the previous bellwether trials will carry forward to the next. That should reduce some of the disputes that consumed so much time in the first trials, although the next case will still present different issues, including the guest rider question and a Texas punitive damages issue.

That is a normal progression in mass tort litigation. The first trials often take longer because both sides are educating the court and testing themes. Later trials become more focused because the court has already ruled on recurring evidence disputes. Uber has argued for a shorter trial, seeking a 40-hour limit split evenly between the parties. Plaintiffs have requested significantly more time, seeking up to 65 hours if Uber contests whether the assault occurred and 55 hours if liability for the assault itself is not disputed.

The disagreement over trial length is really a disagreement about what the jury should hear. Uber wants a case focused tightly on the individual claim and damages. Plaintiffs want enough time to present the broader safety narrative that has been central to the litigation from the beginning. That may be the most important development after the first two bellwether trials. The verdicts showed that plaintiffs can win. The next trials will show how much of Uber’s broader conduct juries are allowed to consider when deciding why those cases should succeed.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________