Rideshare MDL Part 2 of 5 Motion Practice

Rideshare MDL Updates

Part 2 of 5: Motion Practice

In the last installment of this series, we discussed why the rideshare MDLs are different from other negligent hiring cases. Everyone understands what Uber and Lyft are because everyone uses them. The controversy here is about what happens when the system breaks down—and whether the platform can be held responsible for the safety systems it built, controlled, and marketed.

For plaintiff lawyers, motion practice is where the case either expands into a national case or gets chopped down into a one bad apple story. Uber’s defense strategy is predictable: narrow the negligence theories, keep the focus on the individual ride, limit system-wide safety evidence, and prevent plaintiffs from turning internal safety data into proof of corporate notice and foreseeability. Uber wants each case treated like an isolated incident. Plaintiffs want the case to be about the system. Plaintiffs focus on how complaints move through Uber’s systems, how escalation protocols were developed, how drivers got deactivated, how reports were categorized, and whether the company’s safety tools matched the risk it knew existed. That is the evidence that Plaintiffs allege makes a single traumatic ride into a massive corporate-responsibility case. Without it, plaintiffs are stuck fighting over the driver. With it, they can start fighting over the platform.

A key ruling came on July 8, 2025, when Judge Breyer in the Uber MDL dismissed some claims but allowed others to continue in a decision involving 20 potential bellwether cases. The court rejected some fraud-based theories tied to Uber’s general safety advertising but allowed some product-liability theories to move forward. For plaintiff attorneys, that distinction is important. The strongest cases will not be built on vague “Uber said it was safe” theories. They will be built on concrete safety-design failures, notice, foreseeability, and facts showing the company had tools it failed to use.

Uber has also used motion practice to attack the case inventory itself. In July 2025, Uber told Judge Breyer it had identified more than 100 claims where plaintiffs submitted fake/altered ride receipts or failed to explain why receipts were unavailable. In response, the Court required these plaintiffs to provide valid receipts or expanded explanations. The lesson is obvious but worth saying out loud: intake quality is litigation value. Bad documentation does not just hurt one file. It gives the defense a story about the whole inventory.

That is why motion practice matters so much in this MDL. If plaintiffs can keep the focus on internal safety systems, prior notice, design choices, and complaint procedures, the case is about foreseeability. If Uber can force every claim back into a narrow ride-by-ride frame, the defense gains leverage, making settlements pressure reduced.

With the boundaries set, the litigation moves into the next phase: bellwether trials. That is where the theory finally gets tested in front of a jury—and where plaintiff lawyers start getting the valuation signals that drive the entire settlement conversation. Spoiler alert – there’s some good news and some middling news ahead.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________