Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.
Lyft will pay $25 million to settle claims it concealed safety issues before its IPO.
Lyft will pay $25 million to settle claims it hid safety issues before its IPO
Their efforts follow a recent investigation by Consumer Reports, which found that Uber and Lyft routinely charge different customers significantly different prices for rides ordered at roughly the same times.
Their efforts follow a recent investigation by Consumer Reports, which found that Uber and Lyft routinely charge different customers significantly different prices for rides ordered at roughly the same times.
How Uber and Lyft Use Artificial Intelligence to Price Rides - Consumer Reports
The attorney general’s office accused Uber and Lyft of withholding drivers wages in the form of sales taxes and black car fund fee.
The investigation evaluated whether Lyft’s practices may have violated Executive Law § 63(12), Article 6 of the NYLL , including NYLL § 193 (with respect to illegal deductions), § 195 (with respect to the provision of hiring notices and earning statements), and § 196-b and New York City Administrative Code § 20-
Enrollment in that program is automatic for all gig workers and taxi drivers, with benefits paid for through a passenger surcharge collected instantly via fares. It made headlines in 2023, when the state secured a US$328 million settlement after Uber and Lyft withheld pay and benefits from workers. That settlement included mandatory paid sick leave, minimum pay and other benefits.
The attorney general’s office accused Uber and Lyft of withholding drivers wages in the form of sales taxes and black car fund fee
New York state’s investigation into Uber and Lyft’s wage theft was handled by the New York’s Labor Bureau, part of the Division for Social Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Meghan Faux and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.
The settlements resolve multi-year investigations into Uber and Lyft, which found that the companies improperly collected sales tax and the Black Car Fund surcharges from New York drivers rather than passengers.
Lyft lured drivers with false claims about pay, FTC says.
Lyft lured drivers with false claims about pay, FTC says.
Lyft intentionally failed to pay at least the applicable minimum wage to its drivers for non-productive hours, subjecting it to civil penalties under Labor Code § 1197.1(a).
Lyft’s failure to pay at least the applicable minimum wage to its drivers for “non - productive” hours worked was intentional, within the meaning of Labor Code § 1197.1(a), and subjects Lyft to civil penalties as provided by that statute.
Lyft’s failure to pay its drivers at least the applicable minimum wage for their required rest periods was intentional, within the meaning of Labor Code § 1197.1, and subjects defendants to civil penalties.
Lyft’s failure to pay required minimum wages, rest period wages, rest period premium pay, and overtime wages to its drivers on the pay days for which such wages were due under Labor Code § 204 violated the requirements of that statute, and these violations were willful or intentional, thereby subjecting Lyft to civil penalties under Labor Code § 210.
In July 2020, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, sued Uber and Lyft for classifying drivers as contractors, alleging violations of state wage and labor laws while accusing the companies of getting a "free ride" and having "profited greatly" from "systematically" denying drivers "basic workplace protections and benefits.".
In July 2020, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, sued Uber and Lyft for classifying drivers as contractors, alleging violations of state wage and labor laws while accusing the companies of getting a "free ride" and having "profited greatly" from "systematically" denying drivers "basic workplace protections and benefits."
Lyft settles for concealing defects in its electronic bikes that led to injuries and prior shortfalls before its 2019 IPO.
They also said Lyft concealed the shortfalls before its March 2019 initial public offering, and also concealed defects in its electronic bikes that led to numerous injuries.
Lyft settles shareholder lawsuit over sexual assaults by drivers
Lyft is accused of paying $300,000 to settle allegations of violating New York State regulatory laws.
Lyft To Pay $300,000 For Violating New York State Regulatory Laws - CBS New York
The New York state Attorney General's office sued Lyft last summer for operating in the state without requiring its drivers to have commercial licenses or proper insurance.
Lyft is accused of causing monetary harm to individual drivers as a result of alleged actions, with recovered funds to be distributed to them.
In other words, they assert that monetary harm was al- legedly suffered by individual drivers as a result of Lyft’s alleged actions—and that any money ultimately collected as a result of the officials’ suit is to be meted out to those drivers, just as a recovery in a class action is distributed to members of the class.
Lyft exploited this fact, designing the promotion to minimize payout while maximizing the number of drivers who work extra hours.
Lyft exploited this fact, designing the promotion to minimize payout while maximizing the number of drivers who work extra hours.
Lyft sued the city in 2019 over a minimum wage law for app-based drivers passed by the Council the year before.
Lyft sued the city in 2019 over a minimum wage law for app-based drivers passed by the Council the year before.
Lyft campaign against proposed NYC driver protections sparks accusations of misinformation - Gothamist
Lyft is accused of deactivating drivers and making it difficult to appeal those decisions.
But drivers’ groups there say Uber and Lyft have violated the California law by deactivating some drivers and making it difficult to appeal those decisions.
California’s Labor Commissioner is suing Uber and Lyft for committing wage theft by willfully misclassifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.
Lyft settles following incidents where drivers refused to let a college student ride with her service dog.
Lyft agreed to a nationwide settlement after allegations that drivers discriminated against passengers with service animals.
The terms require Lyft to train its drivers on the rights of passengers with disabilities, and warn them that they could be “deactivated” and lose their ability to drive for Lyft if they violate the law, state Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero told reporters.
College student Tori Andres turned to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights after several Lyft drivers refused to let her service dog, Alfred, ride along with her.
CEO David Risher announced Lyft plans to significantly reduce its workforce as part of a company-wide restructuring.
Lyft plans to "significantly reduce" its workforce as part of a company-wide restructuring, new CEO David Risher announced Friday.
Lyft is accused of facing a lawsuit from male drivers claiming women-only ride options are discriminatory and limit their earnings.
The post Uber And Lyft Face Lawsuit From Male Drivers Claiming Women-Only Ride Options Are Discriminatory And Limit Their Earnings appeared first on AfroTech.
Male drivers for Uber and Lyft have filed lawsuits accusing the rideshare companies of gender discrimination over initiatives that allow female passengers to request women drivers.
Uber And Lyft Face Lawsuit From Male Drivers Claiming Women-Only Ride Options Are Discriminatory And Limit Their Earnings
Lyft is accused of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
That same year, then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego sued Uber and Lyft for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors.
Lyft proposed a settlement after continuing to make deceptive earnings claims despite receiving FTC's notice that such claims were unlawful.
Lyft pays $2.1 million to settle case alleging the ride-hailing service deceived drivers | AP News
"Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC's commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly."
On Monday, the agency and the Department of Justice announced that Lyft had agreed to pay a $2.1-million civil penalty to settle a complaint alleging that it made false and misleading statements about drivers' earning potential and to refrain from making such claims in the future.
In November, Lyft agreed to pay $2.1 million in civil penalties to resolve the accusations.
Lyft says San Francisco overcharged it $100 million in taxes, according to lawsuit
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) confirmed two “landmark” settlements Thursday: Uber will pay $290 million and Lyft will pay $38 million for “stealing earnings from drivers.” James said the two settlements mark the largest wage settlement ever to be won by her office.
After the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Lyft, claiming the company used deceptive advertising practices to mislead drivers about their potential earnings, the rideshare giant has agreed to a proposed settlement.
The settlement includes a $2.1 million civil penalty and mandates that Lyft notify drivers about the revised policy.
FTC Takes Action Against Lyft For Deceptive Earnings Claims
The US Department of Justice filed a complaint against Lyft on Friday, saying the rideshare company violated the Federal Trade Commission Act between April 2021 and June 2022.
Lyft to Pay $2.1M After FTC Says It Misled Drivers on Earnings - Business Insider
According to the FTC, Lyft deceived drivers about how much they could make per hour by featuring hourly earnings based on the top 20% of drivers, which meant most drivers were unlikely to earn the advertised pay.
Lyft's ads also featured "earnings guarantees" that misled drivers into believing they would receive bonuses, leading to tens of thousands of driver complaints, the FTC said.
Lyft agreed to pay a $2.1 million civil fine to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges it misled prospective drivers about how much money they might earn working for the ride-hailing company.
The FTC is taking action against rideshare operator Lyft for making deceptive earnings claims about how much money drivers could expect to make per hour and how much they could earn in special incentives.
FTC Takes Action to Stop Lyft from Deceiving Drivers with Misleading Earnings Claims
The court complaint notes that Lyft continued to make these deceptive earnings claims even after receiving the FTC’s Notice of Penalty Offenses that put the company on notice that deceptive earnings claims were unlawful.
The complaint against Lyft alleges that as demand for rideshare services increased in 2021 and 2022, Lyft made numerous false and misleading claims in its advertising and marketing about how much money consumers could make if they chose to drive for Lyft.
[Lyft] is misleading their drivers.
[Lyft] should pay their driver[s] as stated, it shows I completed the task.
FTC Takes Action to Stop Lyft from Deceiving Drivers with Misleading Earnings Claims | Federal Trade Commission
The FTC is taking action against rideshare operator Lyft for making deceptive earnings claims about how much money drivers could expect to make per hour and how much they could earn in special incentives.
It also demands civil penalties from Lyft pursuant to Section 5(m) (1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.2 In one advertisement campaign, Lyft allegedly made “earnings guarantees”—promises that potential drivers would earn a particular amount if they completed a set number of rides during a given time period.
In that case, the Commission held that advertising earnings guarantees with a vague “if you meet our requirements” disclaimer was a deceptive and unfair practice.77 The waiver failed to disclose relevant and stringent time limits and other requirements, and the guarantee was rarely paid.78 But the Commission has not accused Lyft of using a vague disclaimer with unexpected and hidden terms.79 It has accused Lyft of deploying ambiguous language to describe the type of earnings being guaranteed, which a huge number of consumers reasonably interpreted as the promise of a bonus instead of an earnings floor.
Lyft Matter Number 2223028 October 25, 2024 Today, the Department of Justice, on the referral of the Commission, filed a complaint and settlement with Lyft in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
In July 2021, for example, the complaint alleges that Lyft advertisements for the Miami market claimed that drivers could “earn up to $31/hour,” and those for the San Francisco market claimed that drivers could “earn up to $44/hour.” As the complaint alleges, the figures Lyft used for its “up to” advertisements were the eightieth percentile of earnings for that market.
The Commission must demonstrate that: (1) the Commission has previously determined in an adjudicated proceeding that “such” act or practice is unfair or deceptive; and (2) the conduct violates Section 5’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices.3 The defendant is entitled to de novo review of issues of fact and a court must also review any determination of law made by the Commission in the prior proceeding upon request of any party to such action.4 Counts III and IV of the complaint allege that Lyft had the requisite “actual knowledge” with respect to its allegedly deceptive “up to” and “ earnings guarantee” claims, because Lyft received a Notice of Penalty Offenses (“NPO”) Concerning Money-Making Opportunities,5 which summarized and enclosed FTC cases concerning money- making opportunities adjudicated 1 Magnuson-Moss Warranty-FTC Improvement Act.
Lyft’s hourly earnings claims on its website were followed by small-print language that noted, among other things, that “The hourly earnings communicated above are .
Based on the test described in the October 2021 document, Lyft adopted the revised Earnings Guarantee ads for future Earnings Guarantee promotions and widely disseminated the ads.
Lyft remains in the mobile app ride-hailing business and maintains the means, ability, and incentive to continue or resume its unlawful conduct.
In addition, Lyft made hourly earnings claims without the “up to” qualification in job board ads.
Lyft has also disseminated advertisements featuring “Earnings Guarantees” that misled Drivers into believing that they would receive the guaranteed amount as a bonus in addition to their ordinary earnings.
Lyft’s own employees who handled Driver complaints acknowledged that Drivers were confused about the Earnings Guarantees in their interactions with Drivers.
Among other reasons, Lyft’s hourly earnings claims were based on the earnings achieved by the top 20% of Drivers and factored in tips that Passengers paid to Drivers.
From around April 2021 to June 2022, Lyft widely disseminated inflated hourly earnings claims in web search ads, on social media, on internet job boards, and on Lyft’s website.
Lyft received the Notice and accompanying letter on October 29, 2021.
From January 2021 to at least April 2022, Lyft received tens of thousands of complaints from Drivers stating that they were led to believe that the Earnings Guarantee promotions were a lump- sum bonus.
For example, an internal analysis by Lyft employees concluded that “[d]isplaying hourly earnings in paid campaigns have shown 24% increase in overall leads with the highest increase via job boards and social channels (~35%).” Earnings Guarantee Promotions 30.
Lyft continued to make deceptive earnings claims in its advertisements even after receiving the Notice of Penalty Offenses.
[Lyft] is misleading their drivers.
Lyft’s deceptive hourly earnings claims were typically preceded with the phrase “up to.” Many consumers were unlikely to notice the phrase or understand that it meant that typical Driver earnings would be significantly less than the figure cited in the ad, and the phrase does not make clear that only one in five Drivers earned the hourly figure.
Lyft’s deceptive hourly earnings claims were effective in attracting Drivers.
Lyft continues to disseminate misleading Earnings Guarantee claims; b.
An internal Lyft document from October 2021 described a test of revised Earnings Guarantee ads that Lyft was conducting “in an effort to reduce confusion amongst drivers and new applicants.” The document noted that Earnings Guarantees are “often misunderstood by our drivers and result in unintentional dissatisfaction.” The test revised ads are presented in Figures L and M below.
Maybe [Lyft does] not understand[] how difficult it is to be out in bad weather, dealing with all kinds of people and the wear and tear on the driver vehicle and the person, and then [Lyft] [r]efuses to pay the driver.
From an April 2021 complaint: “I’m going to need Lyft to reference the guarantee thing differently and not put it as you getting this amount for a certain number of rides because it’s makes it confusing between [earnings guarantees and bonuses].
Lyft continues to disseminate misleading Earnings Guarantee claims; b. Lyft disseminated its misleading hourly earnings claims repeatedly over a period of more than a year; c. Lyft continued their misleading hourly earnings claims after receiving the Notice; d.
Lyft continues to disseminate misleading Earnings Guarantee claims; b. Lyft disseminated its misleading hourly earnings claims repeatedly over a period of more than a year; c.
LYFT, INC., a corporation, Defendant. Case No. FY [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff, the United States of America, on referral and notification to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”), filed its Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief (“Complaint”), for a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and STIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELIEF Case No. 24-cv- 1
The government alleged that, between April 2021 and June 2022, we made claims about what Lyft drivers earn on an hourly basis that could mislead drivers into thinking they were likely to earn that amount.
Case 3:24-cv-07443-PHK Document 3-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 15 of 18 Exhibit A: Notice to Drivers Headline of notification interface update: Lyft’s Settlement with the US Government Body of notification interface update: Click to read more about Lyft’s settlement about driver earnings [clicking anywhere will lead to the full notice] Headline of full notice: Lyft’s Settlement with the US Government Body of full notice: Lyft recently reached a settlement in a case brought by the United States Department of Justice upon referral from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency.
and provide notice to its drivers about the settlement. Lyft is also required to pay a $2.1 million
As the complaint notes, the company’s earnings claims increased leads for new drivers by about 24%.12 And its Earnings Guarantees would spur more drivers to work more hours, while ensuring—by design—that most drivers would not actually receive a payout.13 For drivers, Lyft’s campaign was highly misleading.
3 than the actual payout[.]”10 Second, Lyft advertised these guarantees knowing that only about one in five drivers would ultimately qualify for a bonus.11 For Lyft, this campaign was a success.
It requires that Lyft: advertise only what typical drivers earn, clearly disclose the truth about its earnings guarantees, 10 Complaint at ¶ 33.
Yet, as the complaint notes, Lyft continued making its misleading claims.16 The order being announced today puts an end to these practices.
Lyft would further need to substantiate with evidence any claims it makes about drivers’ pay, clearly notify drivers about the terms of its “earnings guarantee” offers, and pay a $2.1 million civil penalty.
Prospective gig workers who believe that these earnings would be more widely achievable are, as he describes, “unreasonable.” Of course, Lyft could have chosen to specifically and expressly advertise that only the top 20% of drivers in each market achieved the specified earnings.
Lyft engaged in clear deception that harmed workers and may have steered them away from better opportunities.
2223028 October 25, 2024 Today the FTC charged rideshare operator Lyft with making deceptive earnings claims about how much money drivers could expect to make per hour and how much they could earn in special incentives.
From January 2021 to April 2022, Lyft received tens of thousands of complaints from drivers reporting confusion about the Earnings Guarantees.
Lyft instead chose to advertise using an ambiguous “up to” qualifier, leaving people considerable room to interpret the typicality of those earnings.
The fact that Lyft’s ads appeared on the internet or that drivers signed up on their phones does not render lawful an otherwise deceptive practice.
Lyft is also required to pay a $2.1 million civil penalty.
Lyft notifies drivers and riders that their calls will be recorded before the recording begins.[110] DoorDash uses an undisclosed third party to monitor and analyze chat and text messages between Dashers and customers for fraud, violations of the company’s terms of service, and quality and training purposes.[111] Shipt records text messages, phone calls, email exchanges and in-app communications between shoppers and customers, as well as shoppers and the company.[112] Instacart does not disclose whether it monitors shoppers’ communications with customers, but both its privacy policy and independent contractor agreement notify shoppers that it records their calls with the company.[113] Amazon Flex collects all communications between drivers and Amazon personnel, including phone calls to support services.[114] Amazon wrote to HRW on May 10, 2025, to clarify that “this type of data collection is used for incident investigations and has data deletion policies that apply”.
The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Lyft Inc. (Lyft) has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn. The settlement includes an agreement to pay $2.1 million in civil penalties and a permanent injunction prohibiting such false and misleading earnings claims.
Lyft allegedly continued these practices even after it received a Notice of Penalty Offenses in October 2021 that placed the company on notice that false and misleading earnings claims were unlawful.
The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Lyft Inc. (Lyft) has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn.
District Court for the Northern District of California, the government alleges that, as early as 2021, Lyft made false and misleading claims in its advertising and marketing regarding potential earnings and incentives to be earned by drivers who signed up to drive for Lyft.
“Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC’s commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly.”
In the stipulated order entered today by the federal district court, Lyft is required to pay a $2,100,000 civil penalty.
SAN FRANCISCO – The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Lyft Inc. (Lyft) has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn. The settlement includes an agreement to pay $2.1 million in civil penalties and a permanent injunction prohibiting such false and misleading earnings claims.
District Court for the Northern District of California, the government alleges that, as early as 2021, Lyft made false and misleading claims in its advertising and marketing regarding potential earnings and incentives to be earned by drivers who signed up to drive for Lyft.
The order also enjoins Lyft from making any misrepresentations regarding driver earnings and includes other monitoring and reporting provisions aimed at promoting Lyft’s compliance with the order.
In the stipulated order entered today by the federal district court, Lyft is required to pay a $2,100,000 civil penalty.
“Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC’s commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly.”
Lyft allegedly continued these practices even after it received a Notice of Penalty Offenses in October 2021 that placed the company on notice that false and misleading earnings claims were unlawful.
SAN FRANCISCO – The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Lyft Inc. (Lyft) has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn.
“Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC’s commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly.”
On Monday, the agency and the Department of Justice announced that Lyft had agreed to pay a $2.1-million civil penalty to settle a complaint alleging that it made false and misleading statements about drivers’ earning potential and to refrain from making such claims in the future.
Under the settlement, Lyft must clearly notify drivers about the terms of its “earnings guarantee” offers and back up any claims it makes about drivers’ pay with evidence.
The SEC charges Lyft with failure to disclose a board member's financial interest in a private shareholder's pre-IPO stock transaction.
SEC Charges Lyft with Failure to Disclose Board Member’s Financial Interest in Private Shareholder’s Pre-IPO Stock Transaction
The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of litigation matters related to accidents or other trust and safety incidents involving drivers or passengers using the Lyft Platform; the Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.
The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of litigation matters related to accidents or other trust and safety incidents involving drivers or passengers using the Lyft Platform; the Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.
The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of litigation matters related to accidents or other trust and safety incidents involving drivers or passengers using the Lyft Platform; the Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.
Lyft is under scrutiny for potential violations of sexual-assault safety laws amid MDL litigation.
Will Sexual-Assault Safety Lawsuits and MDL Scrutiny Change Lyft's (LYFT) Passenger-First Narrative?