DOJ Complaint Against Lyft for Disability Discrimination in Rideshare Services
The U.S. Department of Justice alleges Lyft violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by systematically denying equal service to passengers with disabilities, including those using service animals or wheelchairs.
Read with context. Charges and allegations do not establish guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court, and later filings may update this record.
If the PDF does not display in your browser, download the original file.
About this document
A plain-language guide to the contents and context of this specific court or DOJ document.
Allegations of Service Denials
The complaint documents 13 specific cases where Lyft drivers allegedly refused service to passengers with disabilities between 2022-2026. These include one incident where a blind passenger with a guide dog was denied a ride at an airport. Other examples involve wheelchair users being refused service at medical facilities and blind passengers being denied rides at workplaces. The DOJ claims these represent a broader pattern, citing Lyft's receipt of complaints about disability discrimination. Passengers allegedly missed medical appointments and work commitments due to the denials.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24, 26Service Animal Refusals
The complaint details instances where drivers allegedly refused to transport service animals. One blind federal judge described being denied entry when traveling with his guide dog from a synagogue. Other passengers reported drivers locking doors or demanding pet fees for service animals. Some drivers allegedly drove away without canceling rides, forcing passengers to pay cancellation fees. The DOJ notes Lyft implemented an optional service animal notification feature in 2026 but claims discrimination persisted afterward.
Supported by PDF pages 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24Wheelchair Access Issues
The complaint alleges Lyft failed to accommodate passengers using stowable wheelchairs. One passenger with neuropathy described being refused front-seat access despite explaining her fall risk. A wheelchair user was allegedly denied service when a driver saw her device. The DOJ claims Lyft drivers frequently refused to assist with wheelchair stowage. These incidents reportedly occurred despite Lyft's contracts with healthcare providers to transport disabled passengers.
Supported by PDF pages 20, 30, 31Complaint Handling
The DOJ alleges Lyft's response to discrimination complaints was inadequate. Passengers reportedly received $5-$10 credits in some cases. One complainant waited three weeks without follow-up after submitting evidence. The complaint states Lyft often cited driver privacy when refusing to disclose corrective actions. Some passengers allegedly stopped filing complaints due to lack of meaningful response.
Supported by PDF pages 12, 14, 18, 25, 31Legal Claims
The complaint alleges eight specific ADA violations, including failure to train drivers and refusal of reasonable modifications. The DOJ seeks declaratory judgment that Lyft violated Title III of the ADA and requests court-ordered policy changes. Proposed remedies include ADA training for drivers and monetary damages for affected riders. The government also requests civil penalties. The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 2, 33, 35, 36Impact on Passengers
The complaint describes consequences for affected riders. Some guide dog users allegedly stopped bringing service animals. Others developed strategies like recording interactions. Passengers described feeling stressed and missing important commitments. One passenger reportedly developed sunburn while waiting after being denied service.
Supported by PDF pages 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 32Document record
- Document type
- Criminal complaint
- Category
- Criminal
- Publication date
- 2026-11-09
- DOJ office
- Civil Rights Division
- Case number
- Not stated by source
- Collected
- 2026-11-13
- Original filename
- complaint_-_united_states_v_lyft.pdf
Source & integrity
This copy is preserved from the linked source record. The fingerprint below lets you verify that the bytes have not changed.
82f62cd2853bb8e00f8e5e74e5860c65da9a64b7b5cc3f6717a5dfe7c0fe8eaaShareIt.onl is an independent public-document index and is not affiliated with the U.S. Department of Justice or CourtListener. The linked source record remains authoritative.