Uber Sexual Assault SOL — 50-State Table for MDL 3084 (May 2026)

Time bars are the gating question for nearly every Uber sexual-assault claim, and after three years of state-level reform the answer is no longer "two-year personal-injury statute" in the jurisdictions that matter most. Plaintiffs filing into MDL No. 3084 — In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation — bring claims whose viability turns on the law of the state where the assault occurred, not on the federal forum where Judge Charles Breyer is consolidating discovery and trying bellwethers. The MDL borrows substantive law from each originating state. So before any intake question about the ride, the corroborating evidence, or the app data, the controlling question is: does the plaintiff's state of injury still permit the claim?

This article maps the four doctrines that change a time-bar calculation, summarizes the revival-window landscape after the Adult Survivors Act wave, and provides a 50-state reference table for adult civil sexual-assault SOLs as of May 2026. Treat it as an intake-screening tool — verify against current state code before any filing.

Why SOL is the gating question

The Uber MDL is procedurally federal — multidistricted under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 — but substantively state. Each plaintiff's tort claim travels into the MDL carrying the SOL of the state where the assault occurred. That SOL governs the time-bar analysis no matter where the case sits post-consolidation. A New York rider assaulted in 2018 and a Texas rider assaulted in 2020 do not get the same time-bar treatment, even though both cases now appear on the same Northern District of California docket.

This shapes plaintiff practice in three ways. First, the screening question on intake is whether the case is timely under the state-of-injury law, not federal-MDL law (which doesn't govern SOL). Second, choice-of-law disputes during bellwether motion practice will be litigated state-by-state for any case that depends on revival windows or discovery-rule tolling. Third, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act of 2022 — the reason these cases reach court at all rather than AAA arbitration — does not extend any SOL. EFAA governs venue; SOL reform is a separate state-level project. Confusion between the two is common at intake and worth eliminating early.

The result: SOL analysis is the first substantive screen, not a downstream consideration. A disciplined intake reaches an SOL determination before any conversation about case theory.

The four doctrines that change a time-bar calculation

Four doctrines control whether an adult sexual-assault civil claim is timely. Each stacks on the others; a claim can be timely under any one of them even where the others have run.

Discovery rule. Most states toll the SOL until the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of both the injury and its causal connection to the defendant's conduct. For sexual-assault claims, the discovery rule is applied broadly — survivors often do not recognize the full psychological injury or its causal link for years after the event. The discovery-rule clock can start long after the assault itself. The key intake question is when the plaintiff first connected the assault to compensable harm, not when the assault occurred.

Minority and disability tolling. Nearly every state tolls SOL during a plaintiff's minority. A few states also toll during periods of demonstrated mental incapacity. For Uber-context claims (rider over 18 at the time of the ride), minority tolling rarely applies. Disability tolling is fact-specific and worth assessing for plaintiffs with documented psychiatric injuries severe enough to interfere with their ability to bring a claim.

Sexual-assault-specific SOLs. A growing number of states have replaced the generic personal-injury SOL with a longer SOL keyed to the sexual-assault tort itself. California (10 years from incident or 3 years from discovery, whichever is later), New York (20 years), and New Jersey (7 years from incident or 2 from discovery) are the prominent examples. These specific SOLs govern over the generic PI SOL whenever the conduct meets the statutory definition.

Revival windows. A revival window is a temporary statute that reopens the SOL for claims that would otherwise be time-barred. Revival windows are the most powerful and most jurisdictionally specific of the four doctrines. New York's Adult Survivors Act opened a one-year window that closed November 23, 2023. California's AB 2777, by contrast, opened a window for claims involving "cover-up" conduct by an entity, and that window runs through December 31, 2026. The window must match the case theory — many windows require institutional defendants or specific conduct types.

The revival-window landscape after the Adult Survivors Act wave

The wave of revival legislation that began with New York's Child Victims Act in 2019 and extended into adult-survivor statutes in 2022 has not produced uniform law. As of May 2026, the revival-window landscape splits into four categories.

Open windows. California's AB 2777 remains open through December 31, 2026, for claims involving entities with cover-up culpability — a category that plausibly reaches Uber for the corporate-conduct claims at the center of MDL 3084. A handful of other states have narrower windows still active, but California is the dominant venue for Uber-context revival claims.

Closed windows that were heavily used. New York's Adult Survivors Act (one year, closed November 23, 2023) generated more than 3,500 filings against institutional defendants. New Jersey's Child Victims Act window (closed December 2021) and Vermont's revival window (closed 2020) similarly produced significant volume. Cases filed during these windows remain active; the windows themselves are no longer available for new filings.

Closed windows with limited volume. Several state revival windows opened and closed with thin filings — sometimes because survivor outreach was inadequate, sometimes because the windows were limited to specific defendant classes (clergy, public schools) that didn't reach the rideshare context.

No revival window. Many states have enacted no retrospective revival. In these jurisdictions, a time-barred claim stays time-barred regardless of legislative trends elsewhere. Texas, Florida, and Georgia are notable examples among high-Uber-volume states.

Critically: a revival window applies only in the state that enacted it, and only for conduct that meets the statutory triggers. A California ride that produced an injury in 2018 may qualify under AB 2777. A Texas ride from the same year, against the same defendant, with identical conduct, does not — there is no Texas revival window. This is the most counterintuitive feature of revival-window practice and the most consequential for Uber-MDL intake.

EFAA is a different problem with a different fix

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2022 — codified at 9 U.S.C. § 402 — does not extend any SOL. It eliminates pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a barrier to court for claims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. For Uber, EFAA is why MDL 3084 exists as a federal-court consolidation at all; without it, rider arbitration clauses would channel each claim to AAA arbitration.

EFAA applies retroactively to "disputes that arose" after March 3, 2022, even where the underlying contract predates that. The trigger is the dispute, not the conduct. For older rides, the analysis is whether the dispute itself — typically the survivor's articulation of the claim or institutional notice — arose after March 3, 2022. EFAA does nothing for time-bars. Plaintiffs still need state-by-state SOL analysis to confirm the claim is timely.

The 50-state SOL reference table

The table below summarizes adult civil sexual-assault SOLs as of May 2026 for the states most likely to appear in Uber-MDL intake. For each state: the controlling SOL, whether a discovery rule is available, the current status of any revival window, and the citation. This is a screening reference — confirm against the current state code before relying on any entry.

Adult civil sexual-assault statutes of limitations, as of May 2026
State	Civil SOL (adult)	Discovery rule	Revival window status	Citation
Alabama	Generic PI: 2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Ala. Code § 6-2-38
Alaska	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	Alaska Stat. § 09.10.065
Arizona	2y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	A.R.S. § 12-542
Arkansas	3y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Ark. Code § 16-56-105
California	10y from incident or 3y from discovery	Yes	AB 2777 open through 12/31/2026 (entity cover-up cases)	CCP § 340.16
Colorado	6y from incident; SB 21-073 expanded	Yes	None currently open	C.R.S. § 13-80-103.7
Connecticut	30y from age of majority	Yes	Children only (closed)	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577e
Delaware	2y from incident; longer for specific torts	Yes	Children only (closed)	10 Del. C. § 8119
District of Columbia	5y from incident or majority	Yes	None enacted	D.C. Code § 12-301
Florida	7y from incident; longer for specific torts	Limited	None enacted	Fla. Stat. § 95.11(7)
Georgia	2y from incident; discovery-rule extension	Yes	None enacted	O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33
Hawaii	2y from incident or discovery	Yes	Closed (children)	HRS § 657-1.8
Idaho	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Idaho Code § 5-219
Illinois	20y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	735 ILCS 5/13-202.2
Indiana	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4
Iowa	4y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	Iowa Code § 614.1
Kansas	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	K.S.A. § 60-513
Kentucky	5y from incident	Limited	None enacted	KRS § 413.249
Louisiana	1y from incident (delictual)	Yes	Act 322 (children only) through 8/2027	La. C.C. art. 3492
Maine	No SOL for sexual assault	n/a	LD 1466 active	14 M.R.S. § 752-C
Maryland	20y from age of majority	Yes	Child Victims Act of 2023 active	Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-117
Massachusetts	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	M.G.L. c. 260, § 4C
Michigan	10y from incident or 3y from discovery	Yes	None currently open	MCL § 600.5805
Minnesota	6y from incident	Yes	None currently open	Minn. Stat. § 541.073
Mississippi	3y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Miss. Code § 15-1-49
Missouri	10y from age of majority	Yes	None currently open	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.046
Montana	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	Mont. Code § 27-2-216
Nebraska	4y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-228
Nevada	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	NRS § 11.190
New Hampshire	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	RSA 508:4
New Jersey	7y from incident or 2y from discovery	Yes	CVA closed (12/2021, children only)	N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2a
New Mexico	3y from incident	Limited	None enacted	NMSA § 37-1-8
New York	20y from incident	Yes (limited)	ASA closed 11/23/2023	CPLR § 213-c, § 214-j
North Carolina	3y from incident; SAFE Child Act	Limited	SAFE Child closed (children)	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52
North Dakota	6y from incident	Yes	None enacted	N.D.C.C. § 28-01-16
Ohio	2y from incident; extended for specific torts	Limited	None enacted	R.C. § 2305.111
Oklahoma	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	12 Okl. Stat. § 95
Oregon	5y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	ORS § 12.117
Pennsylvania	12y from incident	Yes	Pending constitutional amendment	42 Pa. C.S. § 5533
Rhode Island	7y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51
South Carolina	3y from incident	Limited	None enacted	S.C. Code § 15-3-535
South Dakota	3y from age of majority	Yes	None enacted	SDCL § 26-10-25
Tennessee	1y from incident; discovery-rule extension	Yes	None enacted	T.C.A. § 28-3-104
Texas	5y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.0045
Utah	4y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	Utah Code § 78B-2-308
Vermont	No SOL for sexual assault (2019)	n/a	Closed (used 2019-2020)	12 V.S.A. § 522
Virginia	20y from incident or majority	Yes	None currently open	Va. Code § 8.01-243
Washington	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None currently open	RCW 4.16.340
West Virginia	2y from incident	Limited	None enacted	W. Va. Code § 55-2-12
Wisconsin	3y from incident or discovery	Yes	None enacted	Wis. Stat. § 893.587
Wyoming	4y from incident	Limited	None enacted	Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105

Two structural patterns are visible in this table. First, sexual-assault-specific SOLs cluster in states with significant reform activity in the last decade (CA, NY, NJ, IL, MD, MI, MO, VA). Second, revival windows for adult claims remain rare — California's AB 2777 is the only active window of significant scope for Uber-context claims as of May 2026. Most state reform has focused on extending standard SOLs prospectively rather than on retrospective revival.

Choice of law inside MDL 3084

The MDL applies the substantive law of the originating state for each transferred case. For SOL analysis, that means the law of the state where the assault occurred — which is typically the state where the ride was hailed and completed. Edge cases arise when the ride crossed state lines, when the plaintiff is domiciled in a different state from the ride, or when the corporate-conduct theory anchors to Uber's California headquarters. Each of these creates a colorable choice-of-law argument that may extend a time-bar otherwise closed in the state of injury, but they are fact-specific and have not yet been authoritatively resolved in MDL 3084.

Plaintiff counsel should preserve choice-of-law arguments at intake. If the ride occurred in a state without a revival window but Uber's relevant cover-up conduct is alleged to have occurred in California, that creates a plausible AB 2777 theory under Restatement (Second) Conflict § 145. Whether that theory ultimately wins is a different question — but it must be pleaded to be preserved.

A practical intake-screening framework

For Uber sexual-assault intake, the SOL screen runs in five questions:

State of injury. Where did the ride begin and end? Where did the assault occur?
Date of injury. When did the ride and assault occur?
Date of discovery. When did the plaintiff first connect the assault to compensable harm? When did they first identify Uber as a potential defendant?
State-specific reform. Does the state-of-injury have a sexual-assault-specific SOL or revival window currently or recently open?
Choice-of-law leverage. Is there a colorable argument that California law (with AB 2777) should govern despite the ride occurring elsewhere?

A "yes" on any one of these doctrines is enough to survive the SOL screen and move to substantive intake. A "no" on all five usually means the case is time-barred for purposes of the Uber MDL, even where the conduct is otherwise clearly within the scope of MDL 3084.

Pending 2026 legislation worth watching

Several state legislatures are working on adult-survivor revival or extension bills as of May 2026. Pennsylvania's constitutional amendment to authorize a revival window for child sexual abuse claims has been pending for multiple legislative cycles; the question of whether adult survivor revival will follow is open. Maine's LD 1466 effectively eliminated the SOL for sexual-assault claims and may be a model for similar legislation in other New England states. Florida and Georgia have seen unsuccessful reform attempts; their absence from the reform map is a function of legislative composition rather than a reasoned policy difference.

Plaintiff lawyers tracking intake from time-barred states should monitor these legislative cycles. A case that is time-barred today can become viable in twelve to eighteen months if revival legislation passes — and the relevant intake records should be preserved against that possibility.

The publisher's read

The Uber MDL is the test case for adult-survivor litigation in the rideshare era, and SOL practice is the threshold at which most cases either qualify or wash out. Two patterns are emerging. First, California is doing disproportionate work — AB 2777 has effectively become the national venue for time-barred Uber cases that can plausibly anchor to corporate California conduct. Second, the absence of revival windows in high-volume Uber states (Texas, Florida, Georgia) is producing a geographic skew in the MDL that doesn't match the underlying conduct distribution. Both patterns will shape settlement math as the September bellwether pair approaches.

For practice: build SOL analysis into intake. Preserve choice-of-law arguments. Monitor pending state legislation. The cases that look time-barred today are not always going to stay that way.