Lyft Lawsuits: Sexual Assault, Wage Theft, and FTC Action

Lyft is currently defending against a wide range of lawsuits: a California wage-theft enforcement action with potential exposure in the billions, hundreds of passenger sexual assault claims now consolidated in both state court and a new federal multidistrict litigation, a Federal Trade Commission action over misleading driver earnings ads, a constitutional challenge to a New York City driver-protection law, and a $100 million tax dispute with San Francisco. It has also recently paid to settle wage claims in Massachusetts and a federal disability discrimination investigation. Here is where each of the major Lyft lawsuits stands.

California Wage Theft and Misclassification Case

The largest legal threat facing Lyft is a coordinated California enforcement action alleging the company misclassified drivers as independent contractors and, as a result, denied them minimum wages, overtime, paid rest breaks, sick leave, and reimbursement for vehicle and fuel expenses. California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower filed her suit in Alameda County Superior Court in August 2020, and parallel actions by the California Attorney General and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego have been consolidated before Judge Ethan Schulman in San Francisco Superior Court.{¹}{²}

The consolidated proceeding also folded in roughly 5,000 individual driver wage claims previously filed with the Labor Commissioner’s office and claims brought by private litigants under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. New individual claims filed against Lyft are being dismissed in favor of the unified lawsuit.{²}

For years the case was stalled while Lyft fought to push the claims into individual arbitration. Every court rejected that argument. The trial court denied Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, the California Supreme Court declined review in January 2024, and on October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.{³} With that fight over, the stay was lifted on July 2, 2024, and the parties entered discovery.

Proposition 22, the 2020 ballot measure classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors, was upheld by a unanimous California Supreme Court in July 2024. That ruling caps the window for the state’s wage claims: the measure took effect December 15, 2020, so recoverable driver work runs from April 6, 2017 through that date under the statute of limitations.{²}{⁴}

The financial exposure is significant. Rideshare Drivers United estimates at least $1.3 billion is owed to just the 5,000 drivers who filed individual claims, covering unpaid wait time, expense reimbursement, and sub-minimum-wage earnings. Extended to all 250,000 eligible drivers, the group projects the two companies together could owe “tens of billions of dollars.”{⁵}

As of March 2025, the public agencies were in confidential mediation with both Uber and Lyft. Lyft had a session scheduled for April 8, 2025. No settlement has been reached. The Labor Commissioner has said it is “too early” to comment on prospects but will seek unpaid wages “to the fullest extent consistent with the law.” If mediation fails, trial is expected in 2026.{²}{⁵}

Massachusetts Wage Settlement

In June 2024, the Massachusetts Attorney General reached a settlement resolving wage and classification claims filed in Suffolk Superior Court against Lyft and Uber. Lyft is paying $27 million in restitution as part of a combined $175 million payout with Uber.{⁶}

The settlement covers current and former drivers who completed rides in Massachusetts between July 14, 2020, and July 2, 2024, excluding casual drivers who averaged fewer than eight miles per week. Drivers who earned less than $34.48 per hour on average receive 10 cents per mile driven; those who earned more receive 6 cents per mile. Payments began going out in September 2025 through the administrator Rust Consulting, and drivers did not need to file claims.{⁶}

Beyond cash, the deal locks in ongoing protections: a $34.48 minimum earnings floor per hour of engaged time, paid sick leave, occupational accident insurance up to $1 million, a stipend toward the state paid family and medical leave program, and a health insurance stipend for drivers working 15 or more hours per week. Lyft must also provide detailed earnings statements, show trip destinations and expected earnings before drivers accept, and run a formal deactivation appeals process.{⁶}

Sexual Assault Lawsuits Against Lyft

Lyft is defending hundreds of lawsuits brought by passengers and drivers who say they were sexually assaulted during rides. The cases are moving on two tracks.

California State Coordination

The state proceeding, In re Lyft Rideshare Cases (JCCP No. 5061), has been active in San Francisco Superior Court since January 2020 and includes cases filed by non-California residents. After more than five years of pretrial work, the coordinated proceeding is described as “procedurally advanced,” and the first bellwether trial is reported to be scheduled for September 2026.{⁷}{⁸}

Federal MDL 3171

On February 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal passenger sexual assault claims into MDL No. 3171 before Judge Rita F. Lin in the Northern District of California. The MDL opened with 17 cases and had grown to roughly 54 by mid-2026. The litigation remains in early stages: parties are exchanging fact sheets and have proposed Fouad Kurdi of Resolutions, LLC, as a special settlement master. No bellwether trials have occurred and no global settlement has been reached.{⁹}

The federal cases exist in the form they do because of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which lets survivors bypass mandatory arbitration for incidents on or after March 3, 2022.{⁹}

What Plaintiffs Allege, and What Uber’s Loss Means

Plaintiffs allege negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of drivers, inadequate responses to safety complaints, and negligent app design. Lyft’s central defense is that drivers are independent contractors, so the company should not be vicariously liable for their conduct.{⁹}

That defense took a serious hit in a parallel Uber case. In February 2026, a federal jury in Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies found Uber liable for a driver’s sexual assault under the “apparent agency” doctrine and awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages, concluding passengers reasonably believed drivers work for Uber based on the company’s own marketing language.{¹⁰} A subsequent April 2026 liability finding in the “Mensing” case added to what observers describe as growing settlement pressure on both the Uber and Lyft litigation.{⁹}

Shareholder Suit

Separately from the survivor claims, Lyft reached a $25 million preliminary settlement in June 2022 with shareholders who alleged the company failed to adequately disclose safety risks, including driver sexual assault reports, in its IPO registration documents. The case was filed in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. The money went to shareholders, not to victims of safety incidents.{¹¹}

FTC Action Over Misleading Driver Earnings

On October 25, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Lyft over deceptive advertising aimed at drivers. The Justice Department filed the complaint in the Northern District of California. In 2021 and 2022, the FTC alleged, Lyft advertised specific hourly rates such as $33 per hour in Atlanta and $43 per hour in Los Angeles that were based on the top 20% of earners and inflated typical driver earnings by up to 30%. The figures also included passenger tips, giving drivers the impression the numbers were base pay. Lyft also promoted “earnings guarantees” like “$975 for 45 rides” without clearly disclosing that the payout was only the difference between actual earnings and the guaranteed amount, not a bonus on top.{¹²}

Under the proposed consent decree, Lyft must pay a $2.1 million civil penalty, stop including tips in stated hourly earnings, substantiate all future earnings claims with evidence of typical earnings, and clearly disclose the actual terms of guarantee offers. The Commission voted 3-2 to authorize the action, and the proposed decree was pending district court approval.{¹³}

Disability Discrimination Settlement

In June 2020, Lyft entered a settlement with the Department of Justice resolving an investigation into allegations that drivers repeatedly refused rides to passengers using wheelchairs or walkers. DOJ cited complaints from four individuals between 2015 and 2018 who said drivers denied them service or treated them rudely because of their mobility devices.{¹⁴}

Lyft paid $42,000 in compensation to the four complainants and a $40,000 civil penalty to the Treasury. It also agreed to require drivers to help stow foldable mobility devices, designate an ADA compliance coordinator, train safety staff on wheelchair policy, add wheelchair policy information to new-driver materials, send quarterly reminders to existing drivers, and deactivate drivers who knowingly discriminate. The agreement ran three years.{¹⁴}

A separate line of cases sought to force Lyft to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicle service. Lyft has defeated those. In 2021, a Northern District of California judge ruled the ADA does not require Lyft to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and in September 2024, a Southern District of New York judge dismissed a similar class action after trial, finding the proposed nationwide service was not economically feasible.{¹⁵}

New York City Deactivation Law Challenge

In June 2026, Lyft and Uber filed separate lawsuits in Manhattan federal court challenging New York City’s Local Law 52, which was passed by the City Council in January 2026 after overriding a veto by former Mayor Eric Adams. The law was set to take effect on July 28, 2026.{¹⁶}

The law bars platforms from dismissing drivers without a “bona fide economic reason” or “just cause,” requires 14 days’ notice before deactivation, and could require the rehiring of drivers deactivated since 2019 who did not receive that notice. It also requires platforms to give accused drivers details about the passenger who made a misconduct complaint. Lyft called the law “hazardous”; Uber called it “reckless.” Both argue it violates constitutional due process and free speech protections and would force them to retain unsafe drivers, including those accused of sexual misconduct, while compromising passenger privacy. The city’s law department was reviewing the complaints as of mid-June 2026, and no rulings had been issued.{¹⁶}

San Francisco $100 Million Tax Suit

In December 2024, Lyft sued the City and County of San Francisco in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging the city overcharged the company $100 million in taxes from 2019 to 2023. The case, Lyft Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (No. CGC24620845), targets the city’s gross receipts, payroll, and homelessness taxes.{¹⁷}

Lyft argues the city improperly counted money paid by riders to drivers as Lyft’s own revenue, when the company says it operates as a middleman that should be taxed only on its commission. It calls the city’s methodology “distortive” and says it forces the company to pay “far more than its fair share.”{¹⁸} The city attorney’s office said it would review the complaint. No resolution or substantive ruling has been reported.

Consumer Pricing Scrutiny

A Consumer Reports investigation published in June 2026 alleged that Lyft and Uber charge significantly different prices for the same route booked at the same time. Using 174 volunteers who checked prices on 30 routes across 17 states, the study found a median difference of about 50% between the lowest and highest quotes for identical trips, and it categorized nearly 11% of advertised discounts as “fake,” meaning a marked-down price simply arrived at what appeared to be the standard rate.{¹⁹}

Lyft disputed the findings, arguing the study’s methodology created “artificial demand” by having multiple volunteers request the same routes at once. Both companies denied using personalized pricing for base fares.{²⁰} No lawsuits have been filed based on the Consumer Reports study, though Connecticut and Maryland enacted restrictions on certain forms of personalized pricing in 2026, and experts told the magazine the discount practices could be actionable under consumer protection laws in several states.{¹⁹}

The Earlier $12.25 Million Driver Class Action

Before the current California enforcement action, a federal class action in the Northern District of California challenged Lyft’s classification of drivers as independent contractors. Lyft settled for $12.25 million on January 27, 2016. The deal did not reclassify drivers as employees. Lyft’s general counsel at the time said the company believed it was important to “preserve the flexibility drivers cherish.”{²¹}

The settlement did shift some workplace practices. Lyft could no longer deactivate drivers for any reason without notice, agreed to limit deactivations to specific grounds like low passenger ratings, and gave drivers a chance to address issues before being removed. It also agreed to cover arbitration fees for drivers disputing compensation or challenging deactivation.{²¹}

1
Courthouse News Service. California Labor Commissioner Sues Uber, Lyft for Wage Theft
2
California Department of Industrial Relations. FAQ: Lawsuits Against Uber and Lyft
3
California Department of Industrial Relations. Lawsuits Against Uber and Lyft
4
Los Angeles Times. California Supreme Court Prop 22 Decision
5
CalMatters. Uber, Lyft Could Owe California Gig Workers Billions of Dollars in Wage Theft Case
6
Massachusetts.gov. Uber and Lyft Settlement Information and Frequently Asked Questions
7
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. MDL-3171 Transfer Order
8
ConsumerNotice.org. Lyft Rideshare Lawsuits
9
MDL Update. MDL 3171: Lyft Passenger Sexual Assault
10
Courthouse News Service. Uber Liable for Sexual Assault by Driver
11
CNN. Lyft Proposed Settlement Safety
12
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Takes Action to Stop Lyft Deceiving Drivers With Misleading Earnings Claims
13
Federal Trade Commission. Lyft, Inc., U.S. v. (Case No. 222-3028)
14
U.S. Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and Lyft, Inc.
15
Brattle Group. Brattle Analyses Support Lyft in Wheelchair Accessibility Class Action Suit
16
Yahoo Finance. Lyft, Uber Sue New York City
17
Claims Journal. Lyft Claims San Francisco Overcharged $100 Million in Taxes
18
Los Angeles Times. Lyft Claims San Francisco Overcharged It $100 Million in Taxes
19
Consumer Reports. Uber, Lyft Different Prices for Same Ride and Fake Discounts
20
Los Angeles Times. Uber, Lyft Accused of Charging Different Fees for Same Route, Time
21
CNBC. Lyft Settlement and What It Means