The Tudor Dixon Podcast: Uber Assault Allegations, Wokeness & Consumer Safety EXPOSED

Date: February 11, 2026
Host: Tudor Dixon
Guest: Will Hild, Executive Director of Consumers Research

Overview

In this episode, Tudor Dixon delves into the alarming allegations of sexual assault within Uber rides, exploring the intersection of corporate accountability, “woke” business practices, and consumer safety. With guest Will Hild—an expert in consumer protection—the conversation exposes Uber's handling of sexual assault claims, the company's internal culture, and broader industry implications. The episode also touches on how corporate “wokeness” sometimes serves as a smokescreen for deeper issues, and how consumer and government pressures can drive change.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Opening: Personal Experience and Initial Shock (02:00–03:43)

• Tudor Dixon shares how she and her mom debate Uber’s safety: “I use Uber. My mom complains... she says to me this is like not safe. You can't use Uber. And I legitimately have completely ignored her... It's a huge company... It must be safe.” (02:16)
• Dixon confronts the assumption of safety after learning sexual assault is reported to Uber roughly every 8 minutes, seeking expert insight from Will Hild.

2. The $8.5 Million Judgment and Systemic Problems (03:43–05:56)

• Will Hild: Discusses a recent $8.5 million verdict against Uber for failing to remove a driver known to be high-risk from the platform, and the broader context of thousands of similar claims.
  • “Uber basically knew that this driver was a high risk... They allowed this driver and a whole host of others to continue to drive on that platform.” (04:18)
  • These judgments could collectively total “about $24 billion... a quarter or fifth of their market cap.” (05:10)

3. Profits, Politics, and Reluctance to Act (07:09–09:25)

• Profit motivation: Uber may have been reluctant to remove drivers to maintain a large workforce during early market share battles.
• “Wokeness” and legal exposure: Hild explains Uber’s hesitancy possibly stems from fears of facing lawsuits over disparate impact if they remove drivers and it disproportionately affects certain racial or demographic groups.
  • “There's been an issue with that, especially after Obama's second term, that a lot of companies were sued if there were any kind of differential disparate impact... It is conceivable you could get sued as a corporation for that policy.” (08:17)

4. California Ballot Initiative and Changing Accountability (09:25–10:32)

• Dixon and Hild discuss a California initiative making rideshare companies liable for assaults—not just individual drivers.
  • Hild: “It does seem to suggest that there needs to be an incentive or disincentive applied directly to these rideshare companies to clean up the problem.” (09:57)

5. Alarming Allegations: Company Policies and Cover-ups (10:32–14:42)

• Every Eight Minutes website alleges Uber prohibited employees from contacting police even when drivers admitted assaults.
  • Dixon: “Uber strictly prohibited employees from reporting driver assaults of the riders to the police... Even if the driver... admitted to committing the rape, they didn't go to the police.” (10:32)
• Hild likens the issue to other large institution scandals (e.g., Catholic Church), connecting Uber’s policy failures to its public positions on unrelated issues (e.g., facilitating out-of-state abortions). Uber’s focus, he suggests, is on “woke signaling” over real reform.
  • “They have tried all of this woke signaling instead. And that's a really troubling thing for this company, to tell you the truth.” (13:36)

6. Uber’s Origins & Regulatory Avoidance (18:30–21:22)

• Hild highlights Uber’s Silicon Valley "move fast and break things" culture—running illegal taxi operations in some cities, bypassing legal reforms, and rapidly scaling with few checks.
  • “The quote, you know, move fast and break things, used to typify Silicon Valley at around the time that Uber was coming up.” (18:33)
• Concerns over lax driver verification: Some exploit the app by letting others use their accounts/vehicles, increasing safety risks.

7. Real-World Consequences: The 2023 Assault Case (21:22–22:18)

• Dixon recounts the $8.5 million judgment for the 19-year-old victim: “She was drunk... This is what we tell our kids: Get a ride... you assume that calling an Uber is a safe ride. And then she was assaulted in the backseat.” (21:44)

8. Inconsistent Safety Responses (22:18–24:44)

• Hild: Uber responds quickly to some safety issues (like mistaken ride pickups via verification codes) but not to assault claims—possibly due to unintended DEI/“woke” consequences, especially since much recruitment is from immigrant communities.
  • “Why is it that they take some things very seriously and seem to be playing really fast and loose… with the safety of women in this other case?” (22:50)

9. Corporate “Wokeness” as Diversion (24:44–28:46)

• Discussion of Uber’s public stances—such as facilitating out-of-state abortions—used to distract from internal scandals.
  • Will Hild references the “Uber files” (leaked internal emails) showing callous attitudes toward victims: “One of the quotes is that ‘I just trashed one of the victims in USA Today.’” (25:55)
• Hild on corporate crisis management: Companies use big marketing campaigns to distract from scandals, with DEI and ESG programs often sheltering mismanagement.
  • “The G in ESG is supposed to stand for governance... Instead it is the refuge for bad executives who are doing wrong.” (28:32)

10. The Waning of “Wokeness” (28:46–30:38)

• Dixon questions whether “wokeness” remains dominant in business after consumer and political backlash.
• Hild: “The ESG and the WOKE capitalism movement put a lot of crazies and activists and far left radicals inside these companies... their goal now is... continue on a lot of this behavior and just not brag about it as much.” (29:44)

11. How Consumers Can Push Back (31:11–36:03)

• Hild urges continued consumer activism: “If you see a company signaling that they are woke... they always have skeletons in their closet.”
  • “The more you see wokeness, the more you should probably stay away from the company.” (32:52)
• Real-world impact: Consumer pressure on brands like Target, Budweiser, State Farm, and Cracker Barrel has driven change or internal reform.
  • “When consumers push back... it enables the voice of sanity in these companies to come to the go...” (33:30)
• Dixon: Offers practical advice for riders: “Maybe that's just the message to our daughters is if you're going to take a ride share... go with a friend.” (35:56)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Uber’s internal failures:

• Will Hild: “Uber basically knew that this driver was a high risk for this... They allowed this driver and a whole host of others to continue to drive on that platform.” (04:18)

On corporate “wokeness” and accountability:

• Will Hild: “Instead of just dealing with the issue directly and saying, we are going to take these allegations very seriously... they have tried all of this woke signaling instead.” (13:36)

On whistleblower leaks (“Uber files”):

• Will Hild: “One of the quotes is that ‘I just trashed one of the victims in USA Today.’... That was directly related... to the way that they were attacking their customers who had been victimized by their drivers.” (25:55)

Consumer activism works:

• Will Hild: “When consumers push back like they did with Target, like they did with Budweiser, it actually enables the voice of sanity in these companies to come...” (33:30)

Practical closing advice:

• Tudor Dixon: “Maybe that's just the message to our daughters is if you're going to take a ride share... go with a friend.” (35:56)

Important Timestamps

• 02:00 – Tudor Dixon opens with personal Uber safety concerns and stats
• 03:43 – Will Hild lays out the $8.5M judgment and Uber’s systemic issues
• 07:09 – Incentives and DEI complicate Uber’s risk management
• 09:45 – Discussion of the California initiative making companies liable
• 10:32 – Claims that Uber prevented staff from contacting police after assaults
• 13:36 – Uber’s use of “woke signaling” instead of substantive reform
• 18:30 – “Move fast and break things”: Uber’s culture and regulatory evasion
• 21:22 – Specific example: 19-year-old passenger’s assault case
• 25:55 – The leaked “Uber files” and evidence of callous internal culture
• 29:44 – The persistence of “woke” activists within companies
• 31:11 – Hild’s advice on fighting back as consumers
• 35:56 – Dixon’s takeaway: “Go with a friend”

Final Takeaways

• Uber’s handling of sexual assault allegations is deeply flawed both structurally and culturally, often putting liability concerns and image over customer safety.
• Corporate “wokeness” may be used as a distraction from serious internal issues, with surface-level virtue signaling replacing substantive reform.
• Consumer activism (e.g., boycotts, public backlash) has already changed corporate behavior and remains a strong driver for accountability.
• Practical safety advice for rideshare users—especially young women: never travel alone if possible.
• Ongoing vigilance by both consumers and government is necessary to ensure large companies prioritize safety and accountability.