A wave of lawsuits filed by hundreds of women against Uber alleges that the company's efforts to prevent sexual assault by its drivers have fallen short. In a significant development, a panel of judges has ruled that more than 80 of these cases can be consolidated into federal court, holding considerable implications for both Uber and its future passengers and drivers. The outcome of this legal battle could potentially usher in substantial changes to Uber's platform, aimed at reducing sexual assault incidents, while also raising concerns about privacy.

At the heart of this unfolding narrative lies the role of technology.

Despite introducing new safety features in its app, such as a 911 button and the ability to share locations with friends, Uber's response to sexual assault cases, which plaintiffs claim the company knew about since 2014, has been deemed insufficient by survivors and their legal representatives. As a result, they are calling for more robust technological solutions, particularly in-vehicle surveillance cameras.

While Uber did introduce features like the 911 button and location-sharing in 2018, other enhancements have been made to the app over the past five years. In 2021, riders and drivers gained the ability to record audio during a trip. The following year, Uber initiated a pilot program to offer passengers live assistance from ADT safety agents, along with PIN verifications to ensure that passengers were connected with the correct driver.

Rachel Abrams, a sexual assault attorney and partner at law firm Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, one of the firms involved in the multidistrict litigation, contends that these app-based solutions are only partial measures and have failed to reduce sexual violence against passengers on the platform. According to Abrams, mandatory in-vehicle cameras in Uber vehicles are "essential for safety."

Uber declined to provide specific comments on the ongoing litigation but emphasized its commitment to the safety of all users on its platform.

The Deterrent Value of In-Vehicle Cameras Abrams cited data from studies on taxis equipped with in-vehicle cameras, demonstrating a significant reduction in incidents of sexual assault involving passengers and drivers. The argument is that surveillance cameras could deter predatory and opportunistic drivers from exploiting vulnerable passengers.

As to why Uber has not mandated the use of cameras in its ride-hail vehicles, the company did not respond to inquiries from TechCrunch. Concerns over privacy and varying legal frameworks regarding camera mandates in local and state jurisdictions may be contributing factors.

Abrams, however, has a different perspective on Uber's reluctance to implement security cameras, suggesting that it may be more about driver preferences and potential deterrence for drivers, who may not want surveillance. Many drivers install their own dash cameras for purposes such as insurance claims or protecting themselves from deactivations by Uber. Uber is also testing a video recording feature for drivers, giving them control over what and when to record and share.

Additional Demands and Background Checks In the consolidated lawsuit, survivors also contend that Uber's "fast and shallow background checks" fall short of the necessary standards and are designed to expedite driver sign-ups. Uber utilizes third-party companies like Checkr and Appriss for background checks, which some experts argue are not comprehensive enough to prevent potentially problematic drivers from joining the platform.

The lawsuit calls for fingerprinting, which involves running prospective drivers through FBI databases, a measure that Uber has actively resisted.

Uber's opposition to more stringent background requirements has given the company the authority to conduct its own background checks with limited oversight, setting it apart from most traditional taxi operators. The rationale behind Uber's stance is that fingerprint checks can produce inaccurate results and may unfairly affect minority communities with higher arrest rates.

In addition to in-vehicle surveillance and enhanced background checks, the survivors are demanding that Uber provide driver training on passenger interactions, establish a zero-tolerance policy for drivers, offer sexual harassment education and training, and create a more effective system for encouraging customer reporting and monitoring complaints.

Abrams argues that Uber's safety features are insufficient because they rely on the app and are only useful when a passenger has access to their own phone. She notes that many survivors either had someone else order their ride, had a dead phone, or were otherwise incapacitated when they needed assistance.

While Uber has not released safety data for 2021 and 2022, the data from previous years has raised concerns. While some statistics indicate a decrease in reported sexual assaults, others show an increase in specific categories, like nonconsensual kissing and nonconsensual touching.

The Challenge of Addressing Ongoing Sexual Assault Sexual assault cases have posed a persistent challenge for Uber over the years. Under Uber's terms of use, class-action lawsuits related to sexual assault are prohibited, leading to individual case hearings. Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California will oversee pretrial hearings, a development expected to streamline proceedings.

The survivors argue that Uber has a duty of care to passengers, which includes taking reasonable precautions to ensure their safety. The pretrial matters, including witness and expert depositions and document discovery, are set to be heard by Judge Charles Breyer, with the proceedings expected to span the next one to two years.