You might have seen some headlines about rideshare giant Uber facing a massive “MDL,” or “Multidistrict Litigation,” in California. The lawsuits center on claims brought against Uber Technologies, Inc. by passengers who allege they suffered sexual assault or harassment by drivers using the platform.
These lawsuits were filed in courts all across the country. Because they raise many of the same questions—how Uber vets drivers, how it handles complaints, and what safety duties it owes riders—the federal court system decided to centralize them for pretrial purposes. That centralized court is located in California, where Uber is based. As of early February, there are currently more than 3,000 sexual assault claims against Uber being heard in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.
What is an MDL?
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) exists to coordinate multiple lawsuits from across the country, brought before a single federal judge to handle shared pretrial procedures—things like discovery, depositions, and rulings on common legal arguments. It’s easy to mix up an MDL and a class-action lawsuit.
That may sound like an MDL is a single case with a bunch of plaintiffs (that’s a class action), but it isn’t. In multidistrict litigation, each lawsuit remains its own discrete case. Every plaintiff still has to prove what happened to them, how they were harmed, and what damages they are owed. The MDL judge does not decide guilt or damages for everyone at once. Instead, the judge creates consistency and efficiency at the beginning to reduce the chaos going forward.
A simple rule of thumb is that if a bunch of people allege the same bad actor did the same bad thing that resulted in harm, then a class action makes sense for resolving the dispute, rather than trying the same set of facts hundreds or thousands of times in individual trials. However, MDLs exist because situations arise where the harm alleged arises from somewhat similar circumstances, but the facts and injuries vary from person to person.
In an MDL, like the one involving Uber sexual assaults, each of the plaintiffs likely wants to obtain, at a minimum:
- Documented platform hiring practices
- Company policies
- Internal memos regarding knowledge of sexual assaults
- Mitigation steps Uber took to solve the problem, etc.
Rather than have plaintiffs file thousands of motions asking for evidence and Uber producing thousands of responses, an MDL streamlines the process. It speeds up the plaintiffs’ cases, while at the same time respects Uber’s due process rights to mount an effective defense.
A bit like an air traffic controller, but for legal motions, the judge manages the crowded “runway” by scheduling discovery, resolving common disputes, and setting universal rules. With that handled, each case eventually moves forward without crashing into the others.
What Is the Basis for the Uber Sexual Assault MDL?
Thousands of people came forward over the last few years alleging sexual assault by Uber drivers. The plaintiffs allege that Uber bears some responsibility for these acts, since it’s Uber’s technology that brought the alleged perpetrators and victims together in the first place.
The reason this is an MDL and not a class action is because every case involves a different rider, a different driver, and different facts. Still, they raise many of the same legal questions: What is Uber’s duty of care to paying customers? How does it promote rider safety? How does it screen and monitor drivers? What does it do with incident reports? One federal judge oversees discovery on those shared issues, instead of fighting the same battles nationwide. These are questions of law that a judge must decide before any trial can occur. That’s what the MDL does initially.
As the MDL continues, the court looks into coordinated discovery. Attorneys depose Uber executives and go over corporate safety data to gain a better picture not only of what happened or at what scale, but also how Uber’s actions may have contributed to these assaults. For instance:
- Did Uber background check any of the “contractors” on its platform?
- Did these background checks screen for violent individuals or those with a history of sexual assault?
- What guarantees did Uber make about the safety of the platform?
These common questions will impact every single case as they move forward.
Like most MDLs, the process is meant to clarify the evidence and push cases toward resolution. That may involve settlements, bellwether trials, or sending cases back to their home courts for trial. What it doesn’t mean is a single verdict that resolves everything at once.
Why Does the Uber MDL Matter?
Most importantly, Uber’s MDL provides the opportunity for sexual assault victims to pursue justice. While that is the most vital part of these cases, it doesn’t mean the impact stops there. As the “gig economy” continues to grow, larger platforms continue to claim that they have next to no responsibility to their customers because the services they offer aren’t performed by employees, but by independent contractors.
As a matter of law, employers bear some responsibility for the actions of their employees. They share liability when their employer hurts people, while on the job. On the other hand, employers generally aren’t responsible for a contractor’s conduct. If Uber can successfully argue that their drivers are independent contractors, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, in many situations for Uber to bear responsibility for what happened to these women. If, on the other hand, the drivers are employees, then Uber is on the hook for their actions.
These cases involve relatively new business models. Court rulings will affect not just victims, but the future of many gig economy companies. Those decisions will also shape what ridesharing, platform work, and similar services look like going forward. At a minimum, this litigation may answer a hard question. Does a rideshare company bear responsibility when its platform sends a rapist to pick up a woman from a bar?
call us 
Email Us 
Text us