Lyft Settles SF's Demand for Driver Data
Under the new agreement, traffic experts and law enforcement officials can view the data so long as the city shields the information from public disclosure.
February 14, 2018 at 04:11 PM
4 minute read
Lyft Inc. has reached an agreement with San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera to share information about driver practices and the services the ride-hailing company offers to disabled passengers and low-income neighborhoods.
Herrera's office subpoenaed four years of records from Lyft and rival Uber Technologies Inc. last June, arguing the city needs the data to analyze how the companies affect traffic congestion and pedestrian safety and whether they're complying with state and local laws. An estimated 45,000 drivers for both companies pick up passengers in San Francisco, according to the city.
Lyft and Uber initially challenged the subpoenas, citing a threat to their trade secrets. Lyft later handed over many of the records the city sought, but the company would only allow them to be seen by attorneys. Under the new agreement, traffic experts and law enforcement officials can view the data so long as the city shields the information from public disclosure.
“It's always our desire to work with cities in which we operate and, after receiving sufficient assurances from the city attorney that the data will be kept confidential and secure, we have reached a resolution … permitting limited sharing of the data within city government only,” Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Harrison said in a statement.
Uber, represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, continues to fight Herrera's administrative subpoena. The company in December appealed a San Francisco Superior Court order to turn over the records to the First District Court of Appeal.
“I want to commend Lyft for being sensible during this process and ultimately doing the right thing,” Herrera said in a statement. “I cannot say the same for Uber.”
“For a company that is supposedly changing its culture, thumbing your nose at the law is a funny way of showing that you're now a good corporate citizen,” Herrera said.
An Uber spokesman said in a statement the company shares “all required data with our regulators in California to ensure compliance with the law. We will continue working with the city of San Francisco on a pilot project to share Uber trip data.”
San Francisco city officials have often sparred with the city's hometown ride-hailing companies, usually with similar results: Lyft will settle after a brief skirmish, while Uber historically digs in for a protracted battle. In 2016, Uber agreed to pay up to $25 million to settle litigation brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles for making misleading claims about its driver background checks. Lyft settled similar claims in 2014 for $500,000.
In this case, Herrera is asking the companies to reveal how many miles and hours their drivers log in the city as well as whether they offer drivers any incentives to commute to San Francisco from outside the region. The city is also seeking records that show which neighborhoods the companies serve and whether they offer rides to passengers who have disabilities.
Read more:
Why Uber's Hired a Federal Health Care Lobbyist
Uber's Tony West Opens Up About Surveillance, Secret CEO Meetings
US Chamber Pushes Benefits for Gig Workers, but Don't Call Them Employees
San Francisco Challenges Law Letting Uber Drivers Bypass Local Business Tax
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 AllLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readMeta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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