The shocking investigation that exposed how a multi-billion dollar company potentially put countless passengers at risk left me deeply unsettled, both as a technology journalist and as someone who regularly uses ride-sharing services. After spending days analyzing the evidence, interviewing experts, and reviewing industry practices, I can now share what went wrong with Uber’s background check system and what it means for rider safety in 2025.
In what industry insiders are calling one of the most significant safety failures in ride-hailing history, Uber’s background screening process approved drivers with serious violent felony convictions, including individuals later accused of sexual assault against passengers. The systemic failure raises alarming questions about the company’s commitment to safety protocols and the efficacy of its vetting systems.
“What we’re seeing is a devastating breakdown in what should be the most basic safety mechanism for any transportation service,” says Dr. Eleanor Martínez, Director of Transportation Safety Research at UC Berkeley. “When background checks fail at this scale, it suggests either negligence or a deliberate decision to prioritize driver acquisition over passenger safety.”
The investigation, initially reported by the Herald Review, revealed that Uber’s screening processes failed to flag numerous drivers with violent criminal histories who were subsequently approved to transport passengers. In several documented cases, these drivers were later accused of sexually assaulting riders who had trusted the platform’s safety assurances.
The technical explanation behind these failures appears multifaceted. Sources familiar with Uber’s screening process point to the company’s reliance on automated systems that primarily scan digital databases rather than conducting more comprehensive checks. These systems can miss records from counties with poor digital infrastructure or outdated information systems—a critical gap that appears to have been exploited.
This failure is particularly troubling given the company’s repeated public commitments to safety following similar incidents in previous years. In 2019, Uber published a safety report disclosing nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assaults during Uber rides in the United States over two years. The company subsequently promised enhanced background checks and safety features.
I spoke with Ricardo Torres, a former Uber operations manager who left the company in 2024. While unable to discuss specific cases due to confidentiality agreements, Torres expressed concern about the pressure to onboard drivers quickly. “The growth metrics always seemed to take precedence over thoroughness,” he told me. “There was constant pressure to reduce the time between driver application and approval.”
The technical limitations of commercial background check systems contribute to the problem. Unlike law enforcement agencies, private companies like Uber rely on third-party background check providers that access a patchwork of databases. Criminal records that aren’t properly digitized or updated across all systems can slip through the cracks.
Dr. Sarah Kang, cybersecurity and data ethics researcher at Stanford, explained to me that the fragmentation of criminal justice data in the United States creates inherent vulnerabilities in even the most sophisticated screening systems. “We have over 3,000 separate county jurisdictions, each with their own record-keeping systems. Without manual verification in each jurisdiction where an applicant has lived, digital checks will inevitably miss some records.”
For riders, the implications are serious. The trust that underpins the entire ride-sharing economy rests on the assumption that companies are thoroughly vetting the strangers who arrive to transport us. When that trust is broken, it threatens not just individual safety but the viability of the business model itself.
Uber’s response to the investigation has been notably measured. The company acknowledged “isolated incidents where our background check system did not perform as expected” but defended its overall safety record. A spokesperson highlighted that the company conducts annual re-screenings of all drivers and has invested in additional safety features like in-app emergency assistance.
However, critics, including several state attorneys general, have called for more stringent regulations of ride-sharing services. “Self-regulation has clearly failed,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Rebecca Miller. “When companies put growth ahead of safety, government must step in to protect consumers.”
The National Association of Ride-Share Safety, a victim advocacy organization, has called for a nationwide standard requiring fingerprint-based FBI background checks for all ride-share drivers—a measure Uber and its competitors have historically resisted, citing concerns about processing times and potential discrimination.
From my perspective, having covered technology and its societal impacts for over a decade, this case highlights how technological convenience sometimes comes with hidden costs. The ride-sharing revolution has transformed urban mobility, but we may have accepted too readily the premise that algorithms and digital systems could adequately screen for human safety risks.
For passengers concerned about their safety, security experts recommend several precautions: verify the driver’s identity and car details before entering; share trip details with friends; sit in the back seat; and trust your instincts if something feels wrong.
As we look ahead, the question becomes whether Uber and similar platforms will fundamentally reevaluate their approach to safety or simply make incremental adjustments until the next crisis emerges. The technology to build safer systems exists—from biometric verification to more comprehensive background checks—but implementing these solutions requires prioritizing safety over growth and convenience.
The ride-sharing future we were promised was one of increased efficiency, reduced friction, and enhanced safety. As this investigation shows, we’ve certainly achieved the first two goals. The third remains very much a work in progress.
