Google Just Sued Uber for Stealing Its Self-Driving Technology: The Insurance Lessons
Quick Answer
A historical look at Waymo's trade-secret lawsuit against Uber and what technology companies can learn about intellectual property, hiring, cyber controls, and…
Technology Risk · 9 min read · Updated July 2026 · Casurance Editorial Team
In February 2017, Waymo—Alphabet's self-driving technology company—filed a lawsuit alleging that a former engineer downloaded thousands of confidential files before joining a business later acquired by Uber. The dispute became a defining technology-risk case. This retrospective does not treat allegations as facts; it uses the public dispute to explain how fast-growing companies can protect intellectual property, manage hiring risk, and build an insurance program around exposures that ordinary general liability policies do not address.
What the dispute was about
Waymo alleged that confidential files concerning LiDAR and other autonomous-driving technology were taken before Anthony Levandowski left the company and founded Otto, which Uber later acquired. Uber disputed key allegations. The litigation eventually settled, but its enduring lesson is broader than the parties: valuable information can cross company boundaries through people, devices, cloud accounts, acquisitions, and rushed onboarding.
For a technology business, the cost of a dispute is not limited to a judgment. Legal defense, forensic work, delayed product launches, investor concern, lost management time, and emergency redesigns can become material long before liability is decided.
Hiring and acquisition due diligence
A new employee should be instructed in writing not to bring a former employer's source code, customer lists, research, drawings, credentials, or documents. Access should be based on role, and unusual bulk downloads should be reviewed. When acquiring a startup, diligence should examine how its core technology was developed, who contributed, which open-source components were used, and whether founders are subject to prior confidentiality or invention-assignment obligations.
Representations in an acquisition agreement are useful, but they do not replace technical validation. Counsel, engineers, security personnel, and the insurance adviser should participate before closing when acquired intellectual property is central to the deal.
Which insurance policies may respond
Technology errors and omissions coverage can address claims arising from technology products or services, but intellectual-property exclusions and definitions vary. Cyber insurance may support forensic investigation and certain privacy or network-security events, yet it is not automatically a trade-secret policy. Directors and officers insurance may matter when executives or the board are accused of inadequate oversight or misleading investors. Employment practices coverage addresses employment-related allegations, not ownership of technology itself.
Some programs offer limited intellectual-property defense or media-liability protection. The exact wording, retroactive date, exclusions, consent provisions, and allocation rules determine whether coverage applies. A broker should review the company's contracts, development model, acquisition activity, and claims scenarios rather than assuming one policy covers every technology dispute.
Controls underwriters expect
Strong applicants can document least-privilege access, multifactor authentication, device management, logging, offboarding, code-repository controls, vendor review, and an incident-response plan. They also maintain signed confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements, conduct conflict checks for sensitive hires, and preserve evidence when a concern arises.
These controls reduce the chance of a loss and make the risk easier to explain to underwriters. They also help separate innocent independent development from material that may have arrived from an outside source.
A practical response plan
If questionable files or credentials are discovered, preserve evidence and involve qualified counsel before deleting or circulating anything. Suspend unnecessary access, identify affected systems, document decisions, and notify applicable insurers promptly under the policy's reporting provisions. Do not make admissions or agree to remediation costs without considering consent requirements.
The best time to map this response is before a dispute. A short tabletop exercise involving leadership, legal, security, human resources, and the insurance broker can expose gaps while they are still inexpensive to correct.
Key Takeaways
- Treat sensitive hiring and acquisitions as both legal and technical risk events
- General liability is not a substitute for technology E&O, cyber, D&O, or tailored IP protection
- Policy wording and exclusions determine whether an intellectual-property allegation is covered
- Preserve evidence and notify counsel and insurers promptly when a concern appears
- Documented access, onboarding, and offboarding controls improve both prevention and insurability