A 26-year-old New Delhi woman has sued Uber in California in response to her alleged December 6 rape by one of the company’s transportation network drivers (full complaint below). Identified only as Jane Doe in the complaint, the alleged victim accuses the company of negligence, fraud, and battery, among other claims. The complaint reads, in part:

Through its relentless marketing efforts, Uber has urged the public to defy common sense and undermine every parent's edict – "don't get in the car with a stranger." Unfortunately, despite its self-proclaimed "commitment to safety," opening the Uber app and setting the pick-up location has proven to be the modern day equivalent of electronic hitchhiking. ...

While Uber lures customers with promises of a "commitment to safety," its only real commitment is to increase its profits by quickly expanding into the most densely populated markets before its competitors, even where it is well aware that its customers are being put in harm’s way. The likelihood of this lawsuit has been known for several weeks since, the alleged victim engaged high profile New York litigator Douglas Wigdor earlier this month. The trial of Doe’s accused rapist, 32-year-old Shiv Kumar Yadav, a man who had previously been jailed for alleged rape and sexual assault, is currently underway in Delhi. As we have previously reported, one Uber driver Boston and two in Chicago, similarly stand accused of raping passengers while working for the company.

At the center of this case will be Doe’s assertion that Uber’s background checks in India were inadequate, failing to meet legally required standards within the country. Whereas the company mandates a seven-year background check on its US-based drivers – which themselves have been proven inaccurate – it was not nearly as exhaustive in its screening within India.

An online petition pointing out this double standard received more than 63,500 signatures and elicited what one Change.org employee described as an “uncharacteristically humble” response from Uber in which the company acknowledged, “we can do better.” Uber has traditionally distanced itself from claiming responsibility and liability for the actions of its drivers which are classified as independent contractors.

The company was briefly banned from operating in India, its largest market outside the US, but the Transportation Ministry subsequently amended its regulations and invited the company to apply for a radio taxi license under newly hardened standards.

Many Uber supporters have pointed out the difficulties of completing effective background checks in India, where public records are often altered or overlooked based on well-placed bribes or influential relationships. Proving this point, Yadav allegedly provided Uber with a forged document from local police stating that he had never previously been involved in a crime. The complaint adds:

Had Uber not sacrificed customer safety for the sake of profit and expansion, and actually cared about who it was employing to drives its cars rather than being preoccupied with claiming its share of the India taxi market, Plaintiff Doe would not have been viciously raped. In fact, a basic background check would have revealed that Yadav had a known propensity for violent and deviant conduct, including numerous arrests for rape and assault, which should have disqualified him from working as an Uber driver.

Our deepest sympathies remain with the victim of this horrific crime. We are cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure the perpetrator is brought to justice.

Uber has set up a special taskforce in India to focus on improving its driver verification and rider safety standards in the country. This includes a promise to work closely with local police to re-evaluate existing drivers and to more-effectively suss out fraudulent identification documents and background information. A company spokesperson said in response to this suit:Uber’s business and its massive valuation are predicated on the company’s ability to canvas the globe with its ride-hailing service , and in the process expanding the existing market for traditional taxis. The company currently faces operating bans or lawsuits in several major global markets which call into question its ability to deliver on this promies. The outcome of this Jane Doe lawsuit could will be a bellwether moment for the company, potentially setting dangerous precident as to its liability when things go wrong with its service, and thus dramatically impacting the economics of these future growth plans.

Read the full complaint below: