Seizing on a recent ruling by the California Supreme Court, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera on Tuesday issued subpoenas to Uber and Lyft for records related to whether their drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors.

California's high court late last month opened a new front in worker classification litigation when it set stricter standards for companies that label workers as contractors and not employees. Herrera said in a statement that the ruling “directly affects” San Francisco's employment laws, including its minimum wage ordinance and health care requirements.

“We don't know whether these ride-hailing companies are breaking the law until they provide the information we seek in these subpoenas,” Herrera said. “We are going to ensure that these companies comply with the Supreme Court's ruling and with San Francisco's laws.”

Lyft spokesman Adrian Durbin said leaders of the ride-hailing app “look forward to helping the city attorney's office fully understand Lyft's business model, including our relationship with drivers.” Durbin said the median earnings for Lyft drivers in the San Francisco region are $25 per hour before expenses.

An Uber representative was not immediately reached Thursday for comment.

The administrative subpoenas were issued to Lyft Inc, Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber's California subsidiary, Rasier LLC. Herrera's demand seeks lists of drivers who provided at least one ride in San Francisco since 2015; documents showing whether those drivers are labeled as employees or independent contractors “for purposes of San Francisco and/or California law;” records indicating how drivers are paid, how many hours they work and whether they receive any benefits; and proof that drivers labeled independent contractors meet the criteria set out by the Supreme Court.

“The argument that these companies have tried to use in the past—that they're just a technology platform—doesn't pass the smell test,” Herrera said. “People go to Microsoft or Salesforce for software. People go to Uber or Lyft for a ride.”

Herrera's subpoenas could provide one of the first regulatory opportunities to test the rules laid out by the justices in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court. Management-side attorneys have predicted a flood of litigation in wake of the ruling as California's many on-demand companies seek to protect business models that rely on designated independent contractors. Dynamex and two employer trade groups have urged the court to not apply its ruling retroactively.

The subpoenas are just the latest challenge by San Francisco to the hometown operations of Lyft and Uber. Last June, Herrera sought four years of data from the two companies about how their many drivers affect city traffic, pedestrian safety and parking. Lyft reached a settlement with the city attorney's office. Uber is appealing a San Francisco Superior Court ruling in the city's favor.

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.

Read more: