The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that more than 1,600 sexual assault cases against Uber may be heard before just one San Francisco judge, a shift that has profound effects for Silicon Valley’s ride-hailing software and its group.
A committee of federal judges was established to organize civil lawsuits from across the nation, and the decision that was made on Monday confirms an earlier choice.
Home-sharing programs, dog-walking solutions, and other “independent-contractor” applications, which have also been hit with bundles of sexual abuse liability claims, along with Uber’s main rival, Lyft, are all closely following the dispute, according to experts.
Uber claimed that a four-year-old provision in the fine print of its user arrangement prevented users from filing any massive complaint against the software.
The technology giant, according to hundreds of rape survivors, skimped on background checks for drivers, failed to report sexual abuse to the police, and allowed sexual offenders to travel for the business while putting money in “rider safety fees” in the pockets of millions of victims.
Federal laws, according to the administrative court, overpasses Uber’s conditions of use deal, which was formerly deemed “unenforceable” by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of California’s Northern District.
Never” a single instance” on the history to support blocking what is known as “centralization” was stated in the higher court’s decision that 50 years of law stood against the type of inversion sought by the ride-sharing game.
The prosecutor wrote that” Uber has certainly persuaded us that we should be the second.”
According to experts, the decision raises the constitutional bar for agreements that app users may accept before placing orders to order takeout, post a appetite trap, borrow an ebook, or view their lab results. Authorities said the prolonged waivers are incomprehensible and have grown more and more costly.
The click-to-agree deals tightly regulate what happens if someone is injured, according to Lindsay Nako, executive producer of Impact Fund, a social justice dispute organization.
Uber did not respond to requests for comment, but its lawyers claimed that a “non-consolidation section” in its conditions of use was advantageous for plaintiffs because it ensured that each case would be heard on its own virtues rather than in a single repository progressing in its appeal to the 9th Circuit.
The use of the terms allows plaintiffs to have their day in court, according to Uber’s attorneys. Plaintiffs “merely consented to that individually.”
However, Nako and others in the case said that if Uber could quickly unwind cases that the government binds together, other big companies would incorporate identical terms into their own terms of use, tangle federal civil courts in endless duplicative lawsuits, putting it much harder for victims to recover damages.
According to the experts, the court preserved rights that most users never realize they were being asked to give away by blocking the clause.
According to Kathryn Kosmides, an advocate for Helping Survivors, a partnership between victims ‘ advocates and personal injury attorneys, “it’s a great win for consumers and a bad day for tech companies.” This most recent ruling establishes precedent in app safety. Many businesses are concerned about what will happen next in this situation.
In one sense, the decision is straightforward: By upholding the panel’s and survivors ‘ rights, the 9th Circuit affirmed the court’s authority to conduct its own business. According to Koh, combining identical cases saves taxpayers money, reduces court backlog, and prevents precedent-setting decisions that might conflict.
It is also incredibly prevalent. According to Breyer, about 70 % of federal civil litigation is currently being decided as part of a multidistrict case.
Nako described the multidistrict caseload as” a mind-blowingly large number.”
Advocates claim that it is simpler and less expensive to argue a single case in a single courthouse than it is to litigate hundreds of cases in different courtrooms across the nation. It’s also beneficial for plaintiffs, who typically request the same set of documents from the businesses they sue.
According to experts, consolidated litigation can make it simpler for plaintiffs to establish the systemic errors they allege. Companies that win or settle these kinds of disputes are more likely to have to alter their business practices than to simply pay out.
Following a multidistrict case that unearthed records showing Johnson &, Johnson had known the ingredient caused reproductive cancers for half a century, it was forced to stop using talc in its baby powder in 2023.
The largest award of damages in American history was brought in a consolidated lawsuit against Oxycontin-maker Purdue, widely regarded as the engine of the opioid crisis.
A loss in Uber’s case could necessitate stringent background checks, stricter regulations governing who can contract to pick up passengers, remove drivers who have been found to be ineligible, install cameras to track every ride, and other changes.
Such adjustments could cost money and be unpopular. The ride-hailing app is also attempting to avoid other outcomes, though.
Centralized cases can uncover a lot of information that would never otherwise be available in public records. While the appellate court considered whether the case could stay in California’s Northern District, Uber has been fighting for months to avoid discovery there.
Does Uber want the information about sexual assaults to be made public? Hell no”! Kosmides stated.
There is no incentive to proceed through this through discovery and to a courtroom with a jury now that the 9th Circuit has rejected its appeal, she said, because in civil litigation, discovery ultimately becomes public.
Kosmides said,” I believe we will see more of those being pursued.”
___
© 2025 Los Angeles Times.
Tribune Content Agency, LLC distributed.
