By Daniel Wiessner
April 13 (Reuters) – After a key setback within the first trial of its type earlier than a federal jury, is predicted to return to court docket on Tuesday to face a second lady’s claims that she was sexually assaulted by a driver she booked by way of the app.
The jury trial in Charlotte, North Carolina federal court docket, which is predicted to final about three weeks, will assist decide whether or not a latest $8.5 million verdict https://www.reuters.com/authorized/authorities/uber-ordered-pay-85-million-key-trial-over-driver-sex-assault-claims-2026-02-05/ in Arizona was a fluke or an indication of actual bother for Uber because it faces greater than 3,300 comparable lawsuits which were consolidated in federal court docket.
Each instances are so-called “bellwethers,” or take a look at instances for that litigation, and the verdicts may assist decide the worth of the remaining lawsuits for any potential settlement or decision of the instances en masse.
The nameless plaintiff claims that upon arriving at her vacation spot in Raleigh, North Carolina, simply earlier than 2 a.m. in March 2019, her Uber driver grabbed her internal thigh and requested if he may “preserve it with him,” prompting her to flee from the automobile.
Uber, which has confronted quite a few security controversies, has not denied that the incident passed off, however claims in court docket filings that it’s a software program firm and never a “frequent provider” reminiscent of a taxi service that has a authorized responsibility to guard passengers below North Carolina legislation. Even when the plaintiff proves in any other case, Uber argues, the corporate is just not answerable for the actions of an impartial contractor.
The query of whether or not drivers are Uber’s staff or contractors, which has a variety of authorized implications, has dogged the corporate https://www.reuters.com/authorized/litigation/fearing-endless-loop-mistrials-judge-tosses-uber-driver-classification-case-2024-07-30/ for many of its existence within the U.S. and overseas https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/uber-talks-with-french-social-security-agency-after-driver-status-dispute-2026-02-02/. A deluge of lawsuits and scrutiny by policymakers has not yielded a consensus.
The North Carolina trial might be presided over by U.S. District Decide Charles Breyer, who usually sits in San Francisco and is overseeing the mass litigation in opposition to Uber.
In an announcement Friday, an Uber spokesperson mentioned the incident within the North Carolina trial was by no means reported to the corporate or to legislation enforcement and solely got here to gentle when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit.
“Sexual assault is a horrific crime that we take extremely critically. We stay centered on investing within the know-how, insurance policies, and partnerships that strengthen security, assist stop hurt, and assist survivors,” the spokesperson mentioned.
Attorneys for the plaintiff didn’t reply to a request for remark.
The plaintiff within the first case https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/uber-faces-sexual-assault-trial-arizona-that-puts-its-safety-record-under-2026-01-12/ to go to trial, an Oklahoma resident, claimed an Uber driver in Arizona harassed after which raped her throughout a trip in 2023.
A jury in February discovered that the driving force was an agent of Uber, holding the corporate liable for his actions. They awarded the girl $8.5 million in compensatory damages however declined to award punitive damages. Attorneys for the plaintiff had sought greater than $140 million in damages. Uber has requested Breyer, who additionally presided over that trial, to throw out the decision or order a brand new trial.
Uber can be going through greater than 500 extra instances making comparable claims in California state court docket. The corporate in September gained the one trial https://www.reuters.com/authorized/authorities/uber-found-not-liable-first-us-trial-over-driver-sexual-assault-claims-2025-10-01/ to happen to this point within the state court docket instances, when a jury discovered that it had did not put measures in place to guard the plaintiff’s security, however that its negligence was not a considerable consider inflicting her hurt.
