Lawsuit Alleges Intoxicated Lyft Driver Sexually Assaulted Woman During Ride

Rideshare services face a growing number of lawsuits alleging Lyft and its competitor, Uber, prioritized growth and revenue over passenger safety.

A Washington woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was sexually assaulted by an intoxicated Lyft driver who threatened to return to her home and harm her unless she complied with his demands.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a plaintiff identified only as D.B. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 13. It names Lyft Inc. as the defendant, alleging the rideshare company failed to adequately screen and monitor drivers despite years of warnings about sexual assaults involving passengers.

D.B argues that Lyft has known since at least 2015 that female passengers were being sexually harassed and assaulted by drivers using its platform, yet failed to implement reasonable safeguards such as fingerprint-based background checks, real-time monitoring of route deviations, mandatory in-ride video recording and stronger warnings to passengers.

Due to these alleged failures, the company is now facing numerous Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, each claiming that the rideshare service prioritized expansion and revenue over its responsibility to keep riders safe. The complaints contend that this failure allowed a systemic safety problem to persist, resulting in reports that predominantly female passengers were subjected to sexual harassment, unwanted touching, assaults, abductions and rape.

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

According to the lawsuit, D.B. ordered a Lyft ride from the Kent train station in the early morning hours of September 16, 2023, after traveling to Washington state. At approximately 3:09 a.m., the driver arrived and began transporting her toward her mother’s home in Bellevue. However, D.B. says the driver was playing music at an excessively loud volume, speeding and driving erratically.

During the trip, D.B. says she noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver and believed he was intoxicated. When she asked him to slow down, the complaint alleges he became increasingly agitated, began yelling and announced that he would not complete the ride.

The complaint indicates the driver then deviated from the expected route and drove to an empty parking lot in an industrial area near a Saar’s Market in Auburn, Washington, far from D.B.’s intended destination. Once parked, he allegedly reached into the back seat, attempted to grab her chest and pull at her clothing.

When D.B. resisted, the driver allegedly grabbed her by the throat, physically overpowered her and threatened, “I have your address, and if you don’t cooperate now, I am going to come back to your address.” Fearing for her safety, D.B. says she was forced to perform oral sex on the driver under duress. The complaint emphasizes that she never consented to any sexual contact.

After the assault, the driver allegedly left D.B. alone in the industrial area during the early morning hours rather than taking her to her destination. She later reported the driver to Lyft for suspected drunk driving but did not initially disclose the sexual assault because she feared he would carry out his threat to return to her home.

“The Lyft driver who sexually assaulted Plaintiff was acting on behalf of, for the benefit of, at the direction of, and within the course and scope of his employment with Lyft and engagement by Lyft. Lyft provided the driver with access to its rideshare platform, the Lyft App, which was a necessary tool for the driver to perform the work Lyft assigned to him. Lyft, through the Lyft App, directed the driver regarding the location of Plaintiff’s pickup, the timing of the ride, and the route for transporting Plaintiff to her destination, as well as other aspects, as described below.”

— D.B. v. Lyft Inc.

The lawsuit states that D.B. suffered physical injuries from being grabbed by the throat, along with severe and ongoing emotional trauma, including anxiety, fear, humiliation and mental anguish.

D.B. raises allegations of general negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, common-carrier negligence, negligent failure to warn, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, strict product  liability and vicarious liability. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the physical and psychological injuries she suffered.

Lyft Sexual Assault Lawsuits

The complaint will be transferred to a federal Lyft passenger sexual assault multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is centralized in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. As the litigation progresses, Judge Lin is expected to establish a series of bellwether trials, involving representative cases selected to help gauge how juries are likely to respond to common evidence and legal arguments presented throughout the MDL.

While the Lyft MDL currently includes about 45 lawsuits, a much larger federal Uber passenger sexual assault litigation is also pending in the same district before a different judge. That separate MDL involves more than 3,400 claims and is already further along in the bellwether process.

Earlier this year, the first federal Uber bellwether trial ended with an $8.5 million verdict in favor of Jaylynn Dean, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2023. While jurors found Uber was not negligent in designing or implementing its safety features, they concluded the company was nonetheless liable because the driver was acting as Uber’s agent at the time of the assault.

In a separate California state court trial held in September 2025, jurors determined that Uber failed to take adequate steps to protect passengers from sexual assault. However, they ultimately declined to hold the company liable or award damages.

Although bellwether trial results are not binding on other plaintiffs, they are closely watched because they often influence settlement negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a global resolution, cases in both the Lyft and Uber MDLs may eventually be remanded to their original federal courts for individual trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.