Lyft fights to dismiss negligence and product liability claims in sexual assault MDL

Lyft Inc. asked U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco to dismiss parts of a multi‑district litigation (MDL) that consolidates roughly 136 federal lawsuits alleging riders were sexually assaulted by drivers matched through Lyft’s app.

The company’s motion targets plaintiffs’ negligence claims under California law and product‑liability claims that treat the Lyft app as a product.

Judge’s skepticism on regulatory shield

Judge Lin, a Biden appointee, expressed doubt that a 2017 decision by California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which declined to require fingerprint‑based background checks, shields Lyft from traditional civil liability. She noted that a jury could still find Lyft negligent based on the company’s actual knowledge of rider safety, regardless of the PUC’s regulatory choices.

Lyft’s arguments on negligence and product liability

Lyft argues the plaintiffs’ negligence claims should be barred because the PUC decided fingerprint checks would not markedly improve safety. The company also contends its app is not a product, citing prior state‑court decisions that have split on the issue.

Plaintiffs counter that Lyft’s lack of biometric screening leads to false ID checks and that, under the Restatement and the app’s functionality, the app should be treated as a product for strict liability purposes—an argument the Uber MDL judge accepted for Uber.

Broader litigation landscape

The MDL is a newer front in the wave of lawsuits against ride‑hailing firms. About 2,000 sexual‑assault cases against Lyft remain pending in a separate California state‑court consolidation set up six years ago. Uber faces thousands of similar federal and state cases, and a recent Arizona jury awarded $8.5 million to a passenger assaulted by an Uber driver.

What this means for riders

For current or former Lyft riders who believe they were assaulted, the MDL process means their claims are being considered together with many others, which can speed pre‑trial rulings but also means a single judge will decide which claims survive. If the judge dismisses negligence or product‑liability claims, plaintiffs may need to refile in state court or pursue other legal theories. Riders should preserve any evidence—texts, ride receipts, and incident reports—and consider consulting an attorney to evaluate their options.

Anyone uncertain about their rights or the status of a claim should speak with a lawyer, especially before filing any new pleadings or deadlines that may arise from the MDL schedule.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 15, 2026.