In Amicus Brief, Lyft Bashes EPA for 'Head-Scratching' Drive to Relax Car Pollution Rules
"Efficient vehicles mean more earnings for drivers, cheaper rides for passengers, and a better business for Lyft," the company's lawyers at Washington's Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis said in a D.C. Circuit filing.
February 14, 2019 at 07:22 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Lawyers for the ride-hail company Lyft Inc. are lining up against the Trump administration's moves to weaken car-pollution rules.
A federal appeals court in Washington is weighing a challenge by California and 16 other states to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to roll back emissions standards for cars produced between 2022 and 2025.
San Francisco-based Lyft said in an amicus brief filed Thursday that the EPA was “wrong” in finding that tailpipe standards set during the Obama administration were inappropriate. Lyft, represented by the Washington litigation boutique Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, joined the states in asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the EPA's action.
“Lyft counts on the automotive industry's innovations in fuel efficiency and electrification to support Lyft's economic and environmental goals,” Jared Marx, a Harris Wiltshire partner, wrote in the filing. “Efficient vehicles mean more earnings for drivers, cheaper rides for passengers, and a better business for Lyft.”
The ride-hailing company has publicly pledged to make all its rides carbon-neutral and is currently piloting a program that lets customers request trips in only hybrid or electric vehicles. Lyft argues in its brief that it's relying on the previously adopted emissions rules to compel manufacturers to build those types of cars.
“Lyft must rely on the automotive industry to make fuel-efficient vehicles prevalent and affordable,” the company's attorneys said. “That will only happen if automakers invest in efficiency-increasing technologies, and that investment is most likely if EPA has future standards on its books today that drive that change.”
Lyft also argued that the EPA cherry-picked facts to conclude that consumers' interest in electric vehicles has waned while ignoring a spike in electric-car purchases over the last three years.
“EPA also draws a head-scratching conclusion from the effect of the new standards on the availability of new and used vehicles,” the amicus brief said. “EPA worries that more stringent standards may force new car buyers into the used car market, reducing the rate at which efficient vehicles replace less efficient ones. But even if that were to happen (and EPA offers virtually nothing to support its assertion), it ignores the positive effects of the standards on the used car market.”
Lyft's brief wasn't the first time the company has jumped into a big-ticket case. The company, with dozens of others, has signed onto briefs challenging the Trump administration's effort to end protections for so-called “Dreamers.”
California's opening brief in the vehicle emissions was filed Feb. 7. David Zaft, a deputy in Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office, is one of the lead attorneys for the state. California, as a petitioner, was joined by Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, among other jurisdictions.
Read Lyft's brief here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
170 GCs Pen Open Letter to Law Firms: Improve on Diversity or Lose Our Business
Gig Economy Plaintiffs Will Test-Drive New SCOTUS Ruling Against Arbitration
Plaintiffs Lawyers Pressure Lyft to Pay Millions in Arbitration Fees
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
Shareholder Democracy? The Chatter Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250