\n<\/p>\n
Hundreds of women<\/span> have filed lawsuits against Uber claiming the company hasn\u2019t done enough to prevent instances of sexual assault by drivers. Now a panel of judges has ruled that more than 80 cases can be consolidated into federal court.\u00a0<\/p>\n The stakes are high for both parties with implications extending to future Uber riders and drivers. The outcome of the case could result in sweeping changes to Uber\u2019s platform, which plaintiffs argue will reduce sexual assault and also raise new concerns over privacy.<\/p>\n The upshot? Technology lies at the center of this very human story.<\/p>\n Uber has attempted to address sexual assaults by drivers \u2014 which the lawsuits claim Uber has known about since 2014<\/a> \u2014 through new safety features in its app, like a 911 button<\/a> and the ability to share location with a friend. Yet survivors, and their attorneys, say that response has been inadequate, and they\u2019re calling for better technological solutions like in-vehicle surveillance cameras.<\/p>\n Aside from the 911 button and location-sharing feature, which were both introduced in 2018, Uber has added other features to the app over the last five years. In 2021, Uber introduced a feature that allows riders and drivers to record audio during a trip<\/a>. The following year, Uber launched a pilot to provide passengers with live help from an ADT safety agent<\/a>, as well as PIN verifications to ensure passengers are connected to the correct driver.<\/p>\n Rachel Abrams \u2014 a sexual assault attorney and partner at law firm Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, one of the law firms working on the multidistrict litigation,<\/span> who filed the petition to consolidate the various actions in federal court \u2014 argues the app-based solutions are half-measures that haven\u2019t <\/span>quelled instances of sexual violence against passengers on the platform. Mandatory in-vehicle cameras in Uber cars is \u201cessential for safety,\u201d she says. <\/span><\/p>\n Uber told TechCrunch it cannot comment on pending litigation but said it remains committed to the safety of all users on its platform.<\/p>\n Abrams cited data from studies of taxis equipped with in-vehicle cameras, which she says has drastically reduced instances of sexual assaults against passengers, as well as assault of passengers against drivers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThese are predatory, opportunistic drivers taking advantage of vulnerable women, so if they\u2019re on film, they likely wouldn\u2019t commit the crime,\u201d Abrams told TechCrunch.<\/span><\/p>\n Uber didn\u2019t respond to TechCrunch\u2019s request for more information about why it hasn\u2019t mandated the use of cameras in ride-hail vehicles, but as with any surveillance, there are privacy issues. The legality of mandating cameras also varies across local and state laws.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Abrams has her own theory as to why Uber has been slow to implement security cameras.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCost isn\u2019t the issue,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s that it would deter drivers because a lot of drivers don\u2019t want cameras. And so if they don\u2019t have drivers, they don\u2019t make money.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Many drivers install their own dash cams to record trips, usually as backup evidence for insurance claims or to defend themselves against unfair deactivations from Uber\u2019s platform. Uber is also piloting a new video recording feature for drivers that allows them to record video on their smartphones. But in those cases, the driver can decide what and when to record, and when to share that data.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The survivors in the joined lawsuit also allege that Uber\u2019s \u201cfast and shallow background checks\u201d are substandard and designed to make it as easy as possible for drivers to sign up quickly. Uber uses third-party companies like Checkr and Appriss to do background checks, which Sergio Avedian, senior contributor at The Rideshare Guy<\/a>, says \u201care at best watered down and not guaranteed of bad apples from falling through the cracks.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The lawsuit calls on Uber to also include fingerprinting, which would run prospective drivers through FBI databases.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThis is a very intentional and deliberate decision as evidenced by Uber\u2019s active lobbying and resistance against municipalities and regulatory bodies implementing any kind of biometric fingerprinting requirements for drivers,\u201d said Kevin Conway, managing partner at Peiffer Wolf\u00a0Carr Kane\u00a0Conway & Wise.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Uber has<\/span> lobbied<\/span><\/a> against additional background requirements for drivers, which has given the company authority to conduct its own background checks with little or no oversight, unlike most taxi operators.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Uber and Lyft say smudged fingerprints<\/a> can lead to inaccurate results and that fingerprint checks reference historical arrest records, which can have discriminatory effects on some minority communities that face disproportionately high arrest rates. An Uber spokesperson told CNN arrest records are incomplete and often lack information about whether a person has been convicted of a crime.<\/span><\/p>\n Aside from in-vehicle surveillance and more extensive background checks, the survivors are asking Uber to implement driver training on interactions with passengers, a zero-tolerance policy for drivers, sexual harassment education and training, and a more adequate system to encourage customer reporting and monitor customer complaints.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Combined data from Uber\u2019s 2019 and 2022 safety reports, which collect instances of sexual assault reported on the app from 2017 to 2018 and 2019 to 2020.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Abrams argues that Uber\u2019s safety features are insufficient because they\u2019re all app-based and only potentially useful if a rider has access to their own phone.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe majority of clients I represent and the women I\u2019ve spoken to who have been sexually assaulted have experienced: (A) someone else ordered the ride for them; (B) their phone is dead or they can\u2019t locate their phone to use the safety shield; or (C) if they could use their phone, they\u2019re incapacitated,\u201d said Abrams.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The lawyer says she has interviewed upward of 5,000 survivors over the course of several years and has seen no difference in the number of attacks before or after implementation of these in-app features.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Uber hasn\u2019t released safety data for 2021 and 2022, and won\u2019t say when it plans to do so. Older data backs up some of Abrams\u2019 claims.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Uber has published two safety reports \u2014 one containing data from 2017 to 2018 <\/a>and another with data from 2019 to 2020<\/a>. The ride-hail company claims that the rate of sexual assault reported on the app decreased 38% between its first and second reports.<\/span><\/p>\n While the rate decrease is positive, not all the data delivers the same message. Over that same time period, the total number of sexual assault reports across five categories fell from 5,981 to 3,824. That drop could be explained by the decrease of trips from 1.4 billion in 2019 to 650 million in 2020.<\/span><\/p>\n And while the total number of incidents as a percentage of total number of rides does decrease through the years, the number of incidents in certain categories actually increases. The number of incidents increased in the categories of nonconsensual kissing, nonconsensual touching and nonconsensual penetration, or rape, between 2017 and 2019.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The total number of rape incidents also rose from 2017 to 2019. And while the number of reported rapes dropped in 2020, the rate has remained the same since 2017. In other words, there has not been an improvement in the rate of rapes on the platform.<\/p>\n Uber has been sued numerous times<\/a> over the past few years by passengers who claim they were sexually assaulted during a ride. Lyft has faced similar lawsuits and accusations<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Under Uber\u2019s terms of use, class action lawsuits can\u2019t be filed against the company in cases of sexual assault, so each case has to be heard individually. This has prevented survivors from advocating for themselves collectively.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California <\/span>will preside over pretrial hearings. This will be the first time a federal judge is able to make decisions for a large amount of these cases, which will streamline the proceedings. Brey<\/span>er may preside over the trials depending on whether the parties agree. If the parties do not agree to have Judge Breyer preside of the case for trial, the cases go back to their home jurisdiction for trial.<\/p>\n Another consolidated lawsuit has also been filed against Uber in California, but it only covers survivors in that state.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Uber has attempted, through several filings for motions to dismiss, to stop the consolidation of these cases. It argues that the company did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs to protect against criminal conduct. Lawyers representing the survivors will have to prove that Uber owed a duty of care to passengers, including the duty of taking reasonable precautions to ensure their safety.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The pretrial matters, including witness and expert depositions and document discovery, will be heard by Judge Charles Breyer. Abrams expects the timeline of the proceedings to last over the next one to two years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nIn-vehicle cameras as a deterrent<\/h2>\n
Other demands<\/h2>\n
Are Uber\u2019s in-app safety features working?<\/b><\/h2>\n
Sexual assaults are an ongoing problem for Uber<\/b><\/h2>\n