The rideshare pitch has always rested on safety: a named driver, a photographed car, a trip you can share with a friend. Those features are real. The question raised in thousands of lawsuits — and now by juries — is whether they do what riders believe they do, and whether the companies deployed the tools they had.
Four features, examined
Background checks. Typically name-and-database screenings rather than fingerprint checks, run at onboarding and periodically afterward. They catch convictions in the databases searched. They do not catch complaints that never became charges, which is how most misconduct surfaces.
Ride tracking and trip sharing. Useful for a friend to see where you are. Neither creates an alert if the route deviates unless the rider has enabled specific settings, and neither stops a driver from ending the trip early in the app and continuing to drive.
Emergency button. Connects to 911 with location data. It requires the rider to reach a phone and press it during an incident — a lot to ask of someone who is being restrained or is intoxicated.
In-car audio and video recording. Available in some markets, optional for drivers, and rarely default. Court records in the Uber MDL describe internal discussions about camera programs that were never rolled out broadly.
A feature that exists in the app is not the same as a feature that protects you in the car. Juries have now heard that distinction in detail — and in April 2026 one concluded Uber owes riders the heightened duty of a common carrier.
Direct2Attorney · Safety AwarenessWhat the litigation has surfaced
What was marketed
Company messaging- "Safety is our top priority"
- Rigorous, industry-leading screening
- Rapid response to complaints
- Continuous monitoring
What plaintiffs allege
Court filings- Drivers kept active after multiple complaints
- Complaint handling optimized for refunds, not removal
- Camera and matching tools shelved over cost or driver supply
- Safety data withheld from riders and regulators
These are allegations that the companies contest, and each case turns on its own facts. But the pattern — safety promoted heavily, safety infrastructure deployed selectively — is the backbone of the negligence theory across both MDLs.
Practical awareness for every ride
What this means if you're considering a claim
Something happened on a ride?
Free, confidential review by a participating law firm. No obligation.
Common Questions
Generally no. The claims concern the company’s duties, not a checklist for riders.
Often yes. GPS routes, timestamps, and complaint histories are obtained through discovery and can corroborate an account.
No. Recording is optional and varies by market and by state recording laws.
That is central to many claims. Whether the company acted on earlier reports is a key question in discovery.
No. Participating firms typically work on contingency. Confirm terms in writing.
