Skip to content
Sign in
Business · Asia Pacific

Slater and Gordon examines potential Uber passenger-safety class action

Slater and Gordon is investigating a potential Australian class action over whether Uber’s policies and practices adequately protect female passengers. The inquiry will assess the company’s handling of reports of alleged driver sexual misconduct, assault and harassment.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 independent reports from 3 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 6 entries
3 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Too few ratedL 0 · C 2 · R 0 · 1 unrated

What happened

Key facts

  • Slater and Gordon is investigating a potential Australian class action concerning passenger safety and alleged sexual misconduct or assaults by Uber drivers (per The Sydney Morning Herald, capitalbrief.com, The Age).
  • The inquiry will examine how Uber handled reports of alleged driver sexual misconduct, assault and harassment (per The Sydney Morning Herald, capitalbrief.com).
  • Cindy Bors, Slater and Gordon’s practice group leader, said the potential action concerns Uber’s broader role in passenger safety rather than claims against individual drivers (per The Sydney Morning Herald, capitalbrief.com).
  • Uber has maintained that its drivers are contractors, not employees, and that it is not a transport provider (per The Sydney Morning Herald).
  • Uber was ordered to pay USD8.5 million, equivalent to $12.1 million, to one rider in a US bellwether case earlier this year (per capitalbrief.com, The Sydney Morning Herald).
  • Uber conducts background checks and has stepped up efforts to ban drivers accused of misconduct (per capitalbrief.com).
  • The New York Times reported that Uber publicly disclosed 12,522 US allegations over five years, while court documents later showed a total of 400,181 (per The Sydney Morning Herald).

The brief

Slater and Gordon is investigating a potential Australian class action over whether Uber adequately protects female passengers and handles reports of alleged sexual misconduct, assault and harassment by drivers. The law firm’s inquiry focuses on the company’s safety policies and practices, and on its response when complaints are reported.

The scope described by Cindy Bors, Slater and Gordon’s practice group leader, is the company’s broader role in passenger safety, rather than claims against individual drivers.

The Age’s headline also describes an Australian class action concerning sexual assaults and harassment by drivers, while the Sydney Morning Herald and Capital Brief report that the firm is investigating a potential action. Uber has maintained that its drivers are contractors, not employees, and that the company is not a transport provider.

Those positions bear on how Uber describes its relationship with drivers and its role in passenger transport; the firm’s investigation is examining the company’s policies and handling of complaints. Capital Brief reports that Uber conducts background checks and has increased efforts to ban drivers accused of misconduct.

It also reports that a US rider received an award of USD8.5 million, or $12.1 million, in a bellwether case earlier this year. That case is a separate US proceeding, rather than an outcome of the Australian investigation.

The coverage also cites a US disclosure issue reported by The New York Times: Uber publicly reported 12,522 allegations over five years, while court documents later showed a total of 400,181. Those figures concern US allegations and are distinct from the Australian inquiry.

They provide context for scrutiny of how the company records and reports complaints, but do not determine what the Australian investigation will find. The immediate next step is the investigation by Slater and Gordon into Uber’s passenger-safety systems and its handling of reports. The coverage identifies no decision on whether the potential Australian case will proceed.

The central issue under examination is whether Uber’s policies and responses adequately protected female passengers, alongside the company’s stated view that it is not a transport provider and that its drivers are contractors.

Why it matters

  • Female passengers are the population directly at issue: the proposed inquiry examines whether Uber’s safety policies protected them and how the company handled reports of sexual misconduct, assault and harassment.
  • The complaint-handling mechanism is central: the investigation will assess Uber’s response to reports, while the US figures cited in the coverage contrast 12,522 publicly disclosed allegations over five years with 400,181 in court documents.
  • Uber’s classification of drivers as contractors and its position that it is not a transport provider are directly relevant to the company’s stated role in passenger safety.
  • The US bellwether case resulted in an $8.5 million award to one rider, illustrating a separate financial consequence in litigation involving Uber.

What to watch next

  • Whether Slater and Gordon proceeds with a class action after its investigation of Uber’s safety policies and complaint handling.
  • What the investigation establishes about Uber’s handling of reports of alleged driver sexual misconduct, assault and harassment.
  • Whether the inquiry addresses the distinction between Uber’s stated contractor relationship with drivers and its broader role in passenger safety.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
3 source articles · 3 unique outlets · 2 distinct reports
Outlet political mix: Too few rated· 2 Center · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Asia 100%
Outlet political mix
Too few rated
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
2 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
3 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (3 of 3 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

One source is from a wire service (AP, Reuters, AFP or Bloomberg), whose reporting other outlets often republish.

How outlets' accounts compare

1 framing difference · 2 uncorroborated claims · 2 information gaps
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • The Age headline presents Uber as facing an Australian class action, while the Sydney Morning Herald and Capital Brief describe Slater and Gordon as investigating or preparing a potential action.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • Uber’s stated position is that its drivers are contractors, not employees, and that it is not a transport provider.
  • Capital Brief reports an $8.5 million award, equivalent to $12.1 million, to one rider in a US bellwether case.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • The coverage does not provide a number of Australian passengers affected or alleged incidents in Australia.
  • The coverage describes an investigation into whether Uber’s practices adequately protected passengers; it does not report a finding on that question.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act established a class-action procedure in the Federal Court.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. Uber was founded as a company.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  3. Uber began operating its ride-hailing service.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. Uber’s public reporting on safety became a point of scrutiny in 2019, when the company disclosed figures on reports of sexual assault and other misconduct involving US trips.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. A US federal court consolidated lawsuits alleging sexual assault by Uber drivers into multidistrict litigation.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. In 2025, a US jury ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a passenger in a bellwether case involving an alleged sexual assault by a driver, bringing Uber’s handling of passenger-safety claims before a jury.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

In 2025, a US jury ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a passenger in a bellwether case involving an alleged sexual assault by a driver, bringing Uber’s handling of passenger-safety claims before a jury. The case was part of US litigation over alleged assaults by Uber drivers.

Australia’s class-action framework was established by Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, introduced in 1992. Uber’s public reporting on safety became a point of scrutiny in 2019, when the company disclosed figures on reports of sexual assault and other misconduct involving US trips.

Original sources

3 articles from 3 outlets

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.