Lyft Rideshare Assault Lawsuit Alleges Company Attempts To Silence Attack Victims

Lawsuit claims Lyft concealed the extent of sexual assaults by company drivers, failed to implement basic safety measures and routinely ignored or discouraged victim reports.

A Pennsylvania woman has filed a Lyft sexual assault lawsuit alleging she was attacked by a rideshare driver during a trip arranged through the company’s app, claiming Lyft had long known about similar assaults but failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect passengers.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 5, by a woman identified only as Jane SL104. Lyft Inc. is named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.

Jane SL104 claims she used the Lyft app on February 26, 2025, to request transportation from a friend’s home to her son’s school. During the trip, she alleges the Lyft driver sexually assaulted her after pulling the vehicle over and claiming there was a problem with the tire pressure.

In recent years, numerous passengers have raised similar allegations, claiming that Lyft failed to implement basic safety measures, such as conducting more rigorous driver background screenings, installing in-vehicle cameras, offering riders the option to select a driver by gender, or requiring sexual misconduct prevention training for drivers.

Those allegations have fueled a growing number of Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, which contend the company prioritized business growth over passenger safety. Claims indicate that those failures contributed to an environment in which riders, most often women, were subjected to sexual harassment, unwanted touching, assault, kidnapping and rape by drivers using the platform.

Lyft Sexual Assault Allegations

According to the complaint, the driver initially made Jane SL104 uncomfortable by asking highly personal and inappropriate questions. The lawsuit indicates the driver then stopped the vehicle, exited briefly and returned by climbing into the back seat where the plaintiff was sitting.

The woman alleges the driver grabbed her inner thigh, touched her breast over her clothing and attempted to place his hand beneath her shirt. The complaint further claims the driver demanded that she perform oral sex and pressed his body against her while she attempted to escape.

Jane SL104 indicates that she screamed, resisted and eventually escaped from the vehicle by climbing out of the rear door while kicking and fighting off the driver. She claims she suffered physical injuries, including swelling and redness to her legs, as well as ongoing emotional and psychological trauma.

The complaint alleges Lyft has known since at least 2015 that some female passengers were being sexually assaulted by rideshare drivers, but failed to implement reasonable safety measures that could reduce the risk of attacks. The lawsuit contends the company continued using inadequate driver screening procedures, refused to adopt fingerprint-based background checks and failed to effectively monitor rides despite having access to GPS tracking and other technology.

The plaintiff argues Lyft misrepresented the safety of its platform through advertising and public statements claiming that passenger safety was its top priority while allegedly concealing the frequency of sexual assaults reported by riders.

The lawsuit also claims Lyft routinely failed to cooperate with law enforcement investigations, deleted or restricted access to passenger complaints and deactivated victims’ accounts after reports of sexual assault were made, making it more difficult for survivors and investigators to identify drivers and pursue criminal cases.

In addition, the complaint accuses Lyft of employing policies designed to discourage victims from coming forward, alleging reports were often handled by inadequately trained personnel and that victims were frequently promised follow-up investigations that never occurred.

“LYFT’s actions were a substantial factor in the harm that JANE SL104 suffered. JANE SL104 suffered general damages of pain and\suffering, including but not limited to emotional distress, panic, anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness.”

— Jane SL104 v. Lyft Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, intentional misrepresentation, common carrier negligence and product liability. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries, emotional distress and other losses allegedly resulting from the assault.

Rideshare Sexual Assault Litigation

Jane SL104’s case joins more than 50 Lyft sexual assault lawsuits pending in the federal court sustem, where claims have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin as part of coordinated pretrial proceedings. The court is expected to establish a “bellwether” process involving a group of representative cases prepared for early trial dates.

A separate federal Uber sexual assault lawsuits MDL is also pending in the Northern District of California before another judge. That litigation currently includes nearly 3,600 claims and has advanced further through the bellwether trial process.

Earlier this year, the first Uber bellwether case resulted in an $8.5 million award to Jaylynn Dean, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in 2023. Although jurors rejected claims that Uber’s safety features were negligently designed or implemented, they found the company legally responsible because the driver was acting within the scope of his relationship with Uber at the time of the incident.

In a separate California state court proceeding concluded in September 2025, a jury found that Uber did not take sufficient measures to safeguard passengers from sexual assault. However, the panel stopped short of imposing liability or awarding compensation.

While bellwether verdicts do not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they are often viewed as important indicators of how juries may respond to key evidence and legal arguments. If settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, individual claims in both the Uber and Lyft MDLs could ultimately be returned to their original federal courts for separate trials.

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