Lyft Assault Lawsuit Filed After Woman Sexually Attacked by Driver

Passenger says she kicked driver after being groped, then fled the vehicle to escape her assailant, who was attempting to unzip his pants.

A Georgia woman has joined thousands of others in filing a lawsuit against the Lyft rideshare service after being sexually assaulted by her driver.

In a complaint (PDF) brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 14, a plaintiff identified only as A.T., to protect her identity, indicates she was attacked last September after ordering a ride through the Lyft app. She seeks to hold the company liable for the actions of its driver, and for failing to provide adequate safety features to protect passengers.

A.T.’s claims are similar to those of nearly 20 other Lyft assault lawsuits filed by former passengers, each raising similar allegations that plaintiffs were sexually attacked by drivers after using the rideshare app. The complaints claim that the company failed to take basic steps to prevent drivers from assaulting passengers, mostly women, who say they were harassed, groped, and even abducted or raped.

In addition to the Lyft complaints, more than 2,500 similar Uber sexual assault lawsuits have also been filed in federal courts nationwide. Both rideshare services face accusations that they failed to implement more than bare minimum background checks on their drivers, failed to train drivers in sexual harassment and assault awareness, failed to place surveillance cameras in vehicles, and refused to give customers the option of choosing the gender of their drivers.

According to the lawsuit, A.T. ordered a Lyft to get to a friend’s house on September 8, 2025. Once the vehicle arrived, she got into the back seat. However, during the trip she accidentally knocked over her purse, spilling the contents all over the floor of the back of the vehicle and under the seat.

A.T. states that she then turned on the interior light to find her things, when the driver pulled over, saying he could not drive safely with the light on. At which point, he parked and exited the vehicle. Coming over to the back door, he opened it and groped the passenger’s thighs, legs and underwear while she was bent over retrieving her belongings.

“Plaintiff immediately panicked and kicked at the Lyft driver to stop his assault. When she turned around, she saw that he had a grin on his face, and that he was attempting to unzip his pants.”

– A.T. v. Lyft Inc. et al

The woman was able to escape through the opposite door and flee. However, the lawsuit notes that Lyft still collected a fee for the ride.

The lawsuit notes that the driver was an employee or agent of Lyft, and as a common carrier, Lyft “must exercise extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers, including Plaintiff.” However, A.T. notes that not only does the company fail to do so, it also releases misleading advertising claiming the service is safe.

Her complaint presents claims of general negligence, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, common-carrier negligence, negligent failure to warn, intentional misrepresentation, strict product liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, and breach of contract. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Lyft Sexual Assault Lawsuits

Last October, plaintiffs who were part of similar Lyft sexual assault lawsuits filed a motion to transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), calling for consolidation before one judge in the Northern District of California, where Uber lawsuits have already been centralized. The plaintiffs argue that consolidation would serve the convenience of the court, parties and witnesses, preventing duplicate discovery and contradictory rulings by different judges.

Lyft has indicated it opposes consolidation, primarily due to the existence of a mass tort of Lyft lawsuits already centralized in California state court for the last six years.

The JPML will hear oral arguments over the potential consolidation at a hearing session scheduled for January 29. If the panel decides to heed the plaintiffs’ motion, all federal Lyft lawsuits would be consolidated before one U.S. District Court judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, each claim would remain an individual lawsuit where plaintiffs must establish that their damages were the direct result of Lyft’s negligence.

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