Consumer attorneys are pushing back against Uber Technologies Inc. after the ride-hailing giant moved to block a public advertising campaign highlighting alleged sexual assaults involving Uber drivers. The dispute has added a new front to the ongoing nationwide litigation accusing Uber of failing to protect passengers from sexual misconduct.
At the center of the controversy is an advertising campaign launched by Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), a statewide trial lawyers association. The campaign uses billboards and digital ads to spotlight statistics drawn from Uber’s own safety reports, asserting that the company receives reports of sexual assault or misconduct at a frequent and troubling rate. Consumer advocates say the ads are meant to inform the public and encourage stronger safety reforms, while Uber argues the messaging is misleading and threatens its right to a fair trial.
Uber Seeks Court Intervention Ahead of Bellwether Trials
Uber has asked a federal judge in California to step in, arguing that the campaign could taint the jury pool as the company prepares for upcoming bellwether trials in consolidated sexual assault litigation. Thousands of lawsuits alleging sexual assault by Uber drivers are pending in federal multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California, along with coordinated state court proceedings.
In court filings, Uber contends that the ads oversimplify complex data, lack context, and imply corporate responsibility for criminal acts committed by individual drivers. The company maintains that it has invested heavily in rider safety, including background checks, in-app safety tools, and reporting mechanisms.
Uber also sought discovery from CAOC related to the funding, strategy, and placement of the advertising campaign. According to the company, understanding who is behind the ads and how they are being deployed is relevant to determining whether the campaign improperly interferes with pending litigation.
Consumer Attorneys Defend Free Speech and Public Awareness
Consumer attorneys have urged the court to reject Uber’s request, characterizing it as an attempt to silence critics and suppress public discussion of passenger safety issues. CAOC argues that the advertising campaign is protected speech and relies on information Uber itself has disclosed in public safety reports.
The attorneys emphasize that the ads do not reference specific cases or jurors and are aimed at raising awareness of what they describe as systemic risks in the rideshare industry. They further argue that companies facing widespread litigation should not be permitted to use the courts to control public narratives or restrict advocacy.
From the attorneys’ perspective, the campaign reflects broader concerns about corporate accountability and transparency, especially when allegations involve vulnerable victims and repeat patterns of harm.
Sexual Assault Claims Continue to Pressure Rideshare Industry
The legal fight over advertising comes as Uber continues to face intense scrutiny over passenger safety. Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits allege that Uber failed to implement adequate safeguards, ignored warning signs, and prioritized growth over safety. Some claims accuse the company of allowing drivers with prior complaints to remain on the platform.
Uber disputes those allegations and denies liability, arguing that it cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable criminal conduct. The company also notes that it has expanded safety initiatives in recent years, including ride tracking, emergency assistance features, and enhanced reporting options.
Nonetheless, the volume of claims has made the litigation one of the most closely watched mass tort proceedings involving a technology platform. The outcome of the upcoming bellwether trials could influence settlement discussions and shape how
courts evaluate platform responsibility in the gig economy.
Advertising Dispute Raises Broader Legal Questions
Beyond Uber’s specific case, the dispute raises broader questions about the
limits of advocacy during high-profile litigation. Courts have long struggled to balance free speech rights against the need to preserve impartial jury pools, particularly when
mass advertising intersects with ongoing lawsuits.
Legal experts say the outcome of Uber’s request could set an important precedent for how far corporations can go in challenging
public campaigns run by trial lawyers or advocacy groups. A ruling in Uber’s favor could encourage companies to more aggressively police public messaging, while a denial could reaffirm
strong protections for speech related to public safety and consumer protection.
What Comes Next
The court has not yet issued a final ruling on Uber’s request to curb the advertising campaign. Meanwhile, both sides continue to prepare for the first bellwether trials, which are expected to begin next year.
As litigation progresses, the clash between Uber and consumer attorneys underscores the growing tension between corporate reputation management and public advocacy in the digital age. With billions of rides completed annually and safety concerns under constant scrutiny, the outcome may resonate far beyond this single case.
Ready to advance your legal career? Explore thousands of verified attorney jobs across all practice areas on
LawCrossing, the trusted job board for legal professionals. Find your next opportunity today.
