Lyft sexual assault cases consolidated as Uber hit with $8.5M verdict

The same day an Arizona jury found Uber liable for an alleged sexual assault by one of its drivers, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 17 similar lawsuits against the rideshare giant's competitor, Lyft, into an MDL in the Northern District of California.

In the first bellwether case of the Uber MDL, the jury awarded plaintiff Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million in damages Thursday, finding that the driver was an apparent agent of the company even if it considered him an independent contractor. The jury sided with Uber on the plaintiff's claims of negligence and design defects. In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, 3:23-md-03084 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 4, 2023).

The company, which plans to appeal, emphasized that the jury found in its favor on each of the claims related to its actions.

Uber fired the driver, Hassan Turay, for breaking the company's policy against sex with passengers, but maintained in court that the sex was consensual.

According to Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford Law School professor, the verdict puts the remaining plaintiffs in a strong position going forward in the litigation.

"Often, plaintiffs fare less well in early bellwethers and gain momentum as the litigation progresses, as they have a chance to refine their arguments," Engstrom said in an email Friday. "This makes sense as the plaintiffs keep changing. (Defendants never square off against the same plaintiff twice.) ... So, the fact that Jaylynn Dean prevailed in the Arizona trial bodes well for plaintiffs in this litigation."

It's unusual to see a defendant try to spin an $8.5 million judgment against it as a 'win.' You have to wonder how bad they thought it was going to be," Engstrom said.

Dean's attorneys -- Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp, Alexandra Walsh of Anapol Weiss and Deborah Chang of Chang Klein -- argued Uber didn't do enough to protect riders from potential sexual assault or warn them of the risks. Uber's advertising portrayed it as safe and trustworthy, plaintiffs argued, while the company was aware that sexual assaults were reported frequently. They also claimed the company was negligent by not implementing more measures to prevent vulnerable passengers from being assaulted.

The Lyft plaintiffs also allege that the company knew the prevalence of sexual assault but failed to take adequate steps to prevent it, according to the MDL panel.

"The actions present common factual issues arising from allegations that Lyft was aware of the risk of sexual assault but failed: (1) to screen and background check drivers appropriately; (2) to train and supervise drivers adequately; (3) to respond to complaints and feedback about sexual misconduct from drivers; (4) to implement safety design changes to the Lyft app; and (5) to adopt standard safety measures, such as video and audio surveillance," stated the order consolidating the cases, signed by the panel's chair, Senior U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of Massachusetts. In re: Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, 3:26-md-03171 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 5, 2026).

Lyft factored into the Dean trial. The plaintiffs argued Uber's platform had a defective design because, unlike Lyft, it didn't allow women to request that their driver be a woman. Uber, represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP, argued that couldn't be the cause of Dean's alleged injury since she had the Lyft app on her phone and still chose to call an Uber.

However, the jury sided with Uber on each of those claims. Where they sided with the plaintiff was the claim that the accused driver was an apparent agent of Uber despite the company's disclaiming that its drivers are independent contractors.

"A jury finding that a driver was the apparent agent of Uber is significant because it cuts through the independent contractor label and focuses on how the company presents itself to the public," J&Y Law COO Monica Washington-Rothbaum said in an interview.

Under "apparent agency" doctrine, the plaintiff's perception matters more than any formal relationship the company has with the driver, according to Los Angeles personal injury attorney Arash Homampour.

"'Apparent agency' doesn't require that a formal employment or agency relationship actually exist," Homampour said. "It asks a simpler, common-sense question: Did the company's conduct lead the plaintiff to reasonably believe the driver was acting on the company's behalf?"

That theory could translate to the Lyft case, Homampour said.

"The business models are essentially identical," Homampour said. "Lyft controls the app interface, matches riders with drivers through its own algorithm, sets pricing, vets and rates drivers, and collects payment directly."

The panel assigned the Lyft case to U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin in San Francisco, picking the Northern District of California because six of the pending cases are in the district and it's home to the company's headquarters. It chose Lin in part because she's "not yet had the opportunity to preside over multidistrict litigation."

Lyft opposed consolidating the cases, arguing that it already has a similar lawsuit in state court that includes several consolidated claims. The panel decided to do so anyway, since it needed an efficient way to handle the claims that were filed in federal court.

"Even if we were to find that a single consolidated proceeding in state court is the most just and efficient path for all claims involving sexual assault by Lyft drivers, the Panel cannot require these or any future plaintiffs to file in California state court," Gorton wrote. "Were we to deny centralization here, 21 similar cases still would remain pending across twelve different federal courts, with the possibility that more cases will be filed."