Rape case changes debate about Uber’s responsibility

US federal jury ordered Uber to pay US$8.5 million in case of rape attributed to a driver, setting a precedent for around 3,000 similar lawsuits

That night in November 2023, Jaylynn Dean opened the app, entered her destination and trusted the silent promise that millions of people repeat daily: press a button and arrive safely. What happened next transformed his life and, now, could transform the responsibility of technology giants. A federal jury in Arizona ruled that Uber must pay US$8.5 million to the young woman after finding the company guilty of “apparent agency” in a case of rape committed by a driver. This verdict goes far beyond compensation. It represents a crack in the legal armor that digital platforms have erected for years to avoid human responsibilities.

The decision comes at a crucial time. Around three thousand similar cases are awaiting trial in the United States, all questioning the same perverse logic: how can a company make billions in profits by brokering meetings between strangers and then claim to have no connection with what happens inside the car? The Phoenix court’s response is clear and blunt. When a woman gets into a vehicle with the Uber logo on it, she doesn’t see an “independent contractor.” She sees Uber. And this perception, according to justice, creates real obligations.

The case that shook Phoenix

Jaylynn Dean decided to stand alone against a system designed to silence victims. While returning to her hotel after a ride requested through the app, she was raped by the driver who was supposed to take her to safety. His courage in publicly denouncing the crime broke a cycle of impunity that benefited both the attackers and the company that recruited them with questionable criteria.

The trial in Phoenix District Court lasted tense days. The jury heard testimonies, analyzed evidence and, finally, recognized something fundamental: the user experience is not separate from the brand. The application, integrated payment system and standardized communication create a direct trust relationship with the platform. Therefore, responsibility must also be direct. Although the court did not award punitive damages or recognize explicit negligence, the precedent set is historic. For the first time, a jury has concluded a trial among thousands of consolidated sexual assault lawsuits involving Uber drivers.

The legal fiction of “independents”

Uber’s strategy has always been simple and effective: classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid labor charges and, above all, civil liability. This classification created a dangerous vacuum. While the company controls fares, evaluates drivers and retains a significant part of the ride, it is exempt from guaranteeing basic safety. It’s like running a shopping mall without taking responsibility for what happens in the stores.

However, the reality experienced by passengers contradicts this legal narrative. No one opens the app thinking “I’m going to hire an independent service provider”. People think “I’m going to take an Uber”. This subtle difference carries profound consequences. By building a global brand based on convenience and trust, the company has created legitimate expectations of protection. Ignoring them now is not only immoral but legally unsustainable, as the Arizona ruling demonstrated.

When the brand becomes a responsibility

The thesis of “apparent agency” recognized by the jury deserves to be highlighted. It is based on a simple ethical principle: whoever profits from the trust of others must answer for it. The driver used the Uber app, followed routes defined by the algorithm and received payment processed by the platform. Given this, the victim naturally associated that man with the company. This association is not an illusion. It is the very essence of the digital platforms’ business model.

Therefore, the decision puts direct pressure on the core of the gig economy. If companies want the benefits of a strong and recognizable brand, they must also accept the burden of responsibility. There is no such thing as half commercial sovereignty. Either you control the service entirely, or you give up control — and the profits it generates. Uber chose to keep both sides of the coin, but now it faces the hidden side it tried to hide for years.

The corporate response and its silences

After the conviction, Uber released a defensive statement. A spokesperson told CNBC: “This ruling confirms that Uber acted responsibly and invested significantly in passenger safety. We will continue to put safety at the center of everything we do.” The company also announced that it will appeal the decision, highlighting that the jury did not recognize direct negligence.

This response reveals a troubling disconnect. While victims face permanent trauma, the corporation celebrates the absence of “proven negligence” as a partial victory. This cold legal reasoning ignores an uncomfortable truth: flawed systems do not have to be intentionally negligent to cause irreparable harm. They just need to be insufficient. And the numbers suggest that, for years, security was treated as a cost to be minimized, not as a non-negotiable priority.

Numbers that scream for justice

Last year, the New York Times revealed alarming information. Between 2017 and 2022, Uber received more than 400,000 reports of assault and sexual misconduct. This volume drastically exceeds the official statistics released by the company itself. Uber later published a report stating that serious cases fell by 44%, but experts question the methodology and highlight structural underreporting.

Sarah London, Jaylynn Dean’s attorney at Girard Sharp, summarized the political significance of the verdict. She said the decision “validates the thousands of survivors who came forward, at great personal risk, to demand that Uber be held accountable for prioritizing profits over passenger safety.” This phrase echoes a collective cry: technology cannot be an excuse to roll back basic rights.

Security as a right, not a privilege

Recently, Uber launched a pilot project allowing female drivers and passengers to avoid pairings with men. The measure, although positive, came too late for thousands of victims. It also exposes a contradiction: security should be universal, not a selectable option in the application menu.

Emergency buttons and PIN codes are useful but insufficient tools. They treat symptoms, not causes. The structural problem lies in the deliberate precariousness of labor relations and the lack of rigorous inspection of driver registration. As long as companies profit from deregulation, passengers will remain vulnerable. The Arizona courts took the first step towards reversing this inverted logic.

The precedent that can change an industry

The conviction doesn’t just affect Uber. Lyft faces similar lawsuits, indicating the problem is systemic. When a court recognizes corporate liability for the acts of “third parties,” it dismantles the legal architecture that underpins the entire platform economy. This will pressure not only contractual changes, but also real investments in prevention.

Most importantly, the verdict gives power back to the victims. For years, women were discouraged from reporting assaults with arguments like “it was a bad driver, not the company.” Now, justice states: when you trust the brand, the brand must answer for you. This reversal of perspective could inspire new lawsuits and, who knows, stricter regulation.

In the end, Jaylynn Dean didn’t just fight for $8.5 million. She fought so that no woman needs to repeat her experience. And in this silent battle against corporate impunity, every fair verdict is a seed of transformation. Technology can connect people, but only justice truly protects them.

With information from CNBC*