Uber faces mounting scrutiny across the country as lawmakers, investors and others move to hold the ride-hailing giant accountable for a pervasive pattern of sexual violence during rides.
In California, a proposed ballot initiative would make ride-hailing companies legally responsible for sexual misconduct and assault against drivers and passengers. On Wall Street, the New York State comptroller is leading a shareholder push for Uber’s board to release a “transparency report” detailing its oversight of passenger safety.
And in Washington, Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan sent a letter to Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s chief executive, denouncing the company for prioritizing its “bottom line” over safety. Ms. Dingell, a Democrat, said in an interview that she wanted to hold a congressional hearing and explore legislation on the issue.
All three actions cite New York Times reporting that found Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022 — far more than what the company has publicly disclosed. Uber executives have long been aware of the extensiveness of sexual violence, The Times found, yet they repeatedly prioritized expanding their business over introducing stronger protections.
The Times also found that Uber’s background checks approved drivers with many types of criminal convictions, and that the company allowed many drivers with records of complaints to keep driving — until passengers accused them of serious sexual assault.
“There is no trade-off that should be acceptable to Uber, considering the devastating impact of sexual assault,” Ms. Dingell said in the letter.
Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind.
Matt Kallman, an Uber spokesman, said in a statement that the company had had “several constructive meetings” with Ms. Dingell and her staff and would “continue to answer any of their questions about our approach to safety.”
He described the California proposal as a “retaliatory measure” from the Consumer Attorneys of California, a lobbying group, in response to a separate ballot initiative from Uber that would limit how much automobile accident victims could receive via litigation for their medical expenses, and how much attorneys could earn in fees for those cases.
Mr. Kallman said Uber had been “exceptionally transparent about safety on our platform” and had released three safety reports that detailed serious incidents during rides, but he added that the company “will continue to engage with the comptroller’s office on their proposal ahead of our shareholder meeting later this year.”
This wave of attention compounds existing pressure on Uber, which already has faced a consumer fraud investigation by New Jersey’s attorney general and a separate inquiry by a House oversight subcommittee into its sexual assault safety protocols.
The company is also fighting more than 3,000 lawsuits in federal and state courts from passengers who claim that they were sexually assaulted or harassed by Uber drivers.
Many of those lawsuits were consolidated in federal court, which allows for certain procedural matters from similar cases to be presented before the same judge while each case is tried individually. The first trial in those proceedings began in Phoenix this month.
Uber has argued that it is not responsible for the misconduct of its drivers, whom it considers independent contractors rather than employees.
The verdict could affect how the other cases play out. In a trial in California state court in September, the jury found that Uber was not responsible for a sexual assault that a woman said she experienced during a 2016 ride.
The ballot initiative concerning sexual assault would make Uber liable for the misconduct of its drivers, regardless of their status as contractors. The measure was cleared this month for circulation; if it gains enough signatures to reach the state ballot in November and wins approval, it will reclassify ride-hailing companies as “common carriers” — the same legal category as taxis and trains — which would require them to protect passengers and warn them of known dangers.
The law also would require ride-hailing companies to publish monthly reports on sexual misconduct and sexual assaults, and notify passengers of a driver’s known risks before they accept a ride. And it would mandate fingerprinting for prospective drivers, a measure Uber has long lobbied against.
The Consumer Attorneys of California said it had raised more than $50 million for this and two other ballot measures as part of its fight against the Uber-backed initiative.
Mr. Kallman described Uber’s proposal as “seeking to limit the amount attorneys can collect from people injured in car crashes.”
“We believe Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard lawyers,” he added.
Nicholas Rowley, a lawyer involved in the Consumer Attorneys of California effort, said Uber was trying to shift the narrative away from its sexual assault problem. “It’s a long time coming,” he said. “Uber’s known, and Uber’s done nothing, so it will be a righteous, justified law.”
Emily Steel is an investigative reporter covering business for The Times. She has uncovered sexual misconduct at major companies and recently has focused on the ride-hailing industry.
The post Uber Faces Growing Pressure Over Sexual Assault Record appeared first on New York Times.
