Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,881 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
As many here know, the Prop 22 law was passed in California, declaring that drivers for rideshare companies are independent contractors. One of the clauses in this law is:

Handwriting Font Circle Number Writing


That is, it is now against the law in California for a rideshare company to require any driver to accept any individual trip request from the company, and it is illegal to suspend or terminate any driver for not accepting any individual trip request from the company.

However, Lyft has a ride allocation protocol known as "ride swaps", which works as follows. Once a trip request has been accepted by a driver and he/she is heading to the pickup location, Lyft will, at its discretion, remove the ride from the driver's app and replace it with a different ride, without offering it to the driver beforehand and without giving the driver any chance to reject the trip. Lyft also fails to provide the driver with any details of these swapped rides such as the passenger's rating, the pickup location, or the estimated distance and time to the pickup location prior to imposing it on the driver. Furthermore, and most importantly, once Lyft has assigned the new, swapped, ride to the driver, if he/she cancels it then he/she runs the risk of being suspended or terminated by Lyft. This is in contravention of the law cited above, which strictly and very clearly prohibits suspension or termination for failure to accept trip requests.

This morning, Lyft broke the Prop 22 law when it suspended me for cancelling rides. Lyft had tried to force several swapped rides on me, removing from my Lyft app the trips that I had accepted and replacing them with new trips and new passengers that I had not accepted. I refuse to do swapped rides that I have not accepted and this morning I cancelled all of the attempted ride impositions by Lyft. I was then promptly suspended by Lyft:

Font Magenta Number Circle


This shows that Lyft is ignoring the very law that it wrote, supported and paid for. Lyft seems to be under the illusion that it does not need to abide by the law. Maybe it thinks this because it wrote this legislation. I beg to differ.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,881 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well...... I am about to head off home soon and I will be gone for at least a few months. But if I was hanging around, for a start I would contact the lawyers who previously successfully stuck it to Lyft in the other class action lawsuits and see if they would be interested in taking the case. This would be an open and shut, slam dunk case; Lyft is clearly disregarding the law here - it'd just be a question of whether or not the lawyers could smell enough money for them.

If that didn't work and the smell of money was too faint to attract lawyers to take the case on a percentage-split contingency basis as with the other actions, then I would either take Lyft to court myself or take them to arbitration. Probably to arbitration since in cases involving suspensions and deactivations, or threats made by Lyft thereof, Lyft pays the arbitration costs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,664 Posts
The problems with the legal route are:
  1. Less than 1%of drivers opt out of binding arbitration so there are relatively few people to represent.
  2. What are the monetary damages for each person. Lost wages for those suspended?
  3. A very small percentage of the small percentage have been harmed by this leaving few class members, you might only end up with a dozen or two eligible to participate.
So I don't think you can find an attorney to go for this, arbitration would work but it's a fly swatter at best. Might be fun on an individual basis, could ask for lost pay during breach of contract suspension.

In practice these companies can act with a certain amount of impunity unless local government goes after them. Even then, they are typically more skilled than the politicians they are going up against.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,881 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
The problems with the legal route are:
  1. Less than 1%of drivers opt out of binding arbitration so there are relatively few people to represent.
  2. What are the monetary damages for each person. Lost wages for those suspended?
  3. A very small percentage of the small percentage have been harmed by this leaving few class members, you might only end up with a dozen or two eligible to participate.
So I don't think you can find an attorney to go for this, arbitration would work but it's a fly swatter at best. Might be fun on an individual basis, could ask for lost pay during breach of contract suspension.

In practice these companies can act with a certain amount of impunity unless local government goes after them. Even then, they are typically more skilled than the politicians they are going up against.
When Lyft settled on the class action related to employee misclassification, I received $1,100. I remember going on vacation to Mexico afterwards, where I sat on the beach and raised a cold beer in thanks to Lyft, who had paid for both the vacation and the beer. Exactly how the powers that be calculated that I should get that amount, I don't know. Clearly, it was not the result of anyone sitting down to calculate actual damages, but a case of arriving at a figure that both parties found palatable - easy enough for Lyft to digest and sufficient for the drivers' lawyers to buy a beach house or three in the Hamptons.

I would assume that the number of drivers who opted out of arbitration is indeed small; it would probably be the same number who were opted out for the last legal assault against Lyft. I'm not sure of the numbers, but it will be in the low thousands, judging by the amount I got.

The motivation behind some kind of action against Lyft wouldn't be financial, though; it would be because I don't abide the idea of shyster companies like Lyft thinking they can do as they please. Previous legal action against Uber resulted in major behavioural changes at the company, including curtailing the ability of Uber to deactivate drivers for low acceptance rate and other abuses. The same could be done here for Lyft, in this small way.

I don't know how lawyers value these cases; it could go either way. I did try to get lawyers interested in a different Lyft abuse a few years ago. Back then Lyft would charge pax dollars and cents for a ride, say $15.83. According to the driver contract, Lyft would keep 20% for itself as commission and pay the driver 80%. However, what Lyft would do would be to first truncate the fare amount, so the $15.83 that the pax paid would become $15.00, with Lyft pocketing the 83 cents. Only then would Lyft divvy up the money, taking 20% of the $15.00. The net result of this, of course, was that Lyft took not 20% commission, but 20% of the amount it decided to share, plus all of the 83 cents. This abuse was multiplied, literally, on rides where there was Prime Time. If the $15.83 ride was payable with a PT of +200%, then the total fare paid would be $15.83 x 3 = $47.49. However, Lyft would first truncate the base fare down to $15.00 and only then apply the multiplier, so that the fare according to Lyft was $45.00, even though the pax paid $47.49. Net result = Lyft would take all of the truncated $2.79 plus its commission of 20% on the rest of the fare.

We're talking pennies per ride here, but mathematically the median amount illicitly taken per ride by Lyft would be in excess of 40 cents per ride (mimimum taken = 0 cents, maximum taken on non-PT rides = 80 cents). In reality, the median amount would be greater, taking into account PT rides. But for argument's sake we'll call it 40 cents. Back in 2016 Lyft was doing 150m rides per year. Unjustly taking 40 cents average per ride from drivers netted Lyft an extra $60 million per year. Definitely not small change. And it was money that was payable to drivers for work done, but which Lyft just decided to pocket and keep for itself. However, I could not get any lawyers interested in taking the case. Interestingly, though, I did threaten Lyft with legal action over this and they stopped this practice shortly afterwards. I don't know if it was coincidence or not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,664 Posts
When Lyft settled on the class action related to employee misclassification, I received $1,100. I remember going on vacation to Mexico afterwards, where I sat on the beach and raised a cold beer in thanks to Lyft, who had paid for both the vacation and the beer. Exactly how the powers that be calculated that I should get that amount, I don't know. Clearly, it was not the result of anyone sitting down to calculate actual damages, but a case of arriving at a figure that both parties found palatable - easy enough for Lyft to digest and sufficient for the drivers' lawyers to buy a beach house or three in the Hamptons.

I would assume that the number of drivers who opted out of arbitration is indeed small; it would probably be the same number who were opted out for the last legal assault against Lyft. I'm not sure of the numbers, but it will be in the low thousands, judging by the amount I got.

The motivation behind some kind of action against Lyft wouldn't be financial, though; it would be because I don't abide the idea of shyster companies like Lyft thinking they can do as they please. Previous legal action against Uber resulted in major behavioural changes at the company, including curtailing the ability of Uber to deactivate drivers for low acceptance rate and other abuses. The same could be done here for Lyft, in this small way.

I don't know how lawyers value these cases; it could go either way. I did try to get lawyers interested in a different Lyft abuse a few years ago. Back then Lyft would charge pax dollars and cents for a ride, say $15.83. According to the driver contract, Lyft would keep 20% for itself as commission and pay the driver 80%. However, what Lyft would do would be to first truncate the fare amount, so the $15.83 that the pax paid would become $15.00, with Lyft pocketing the 83 cents. Only then would Lyft divvy up the money, taking 20% of the $15.00. The net result of this, of course, was that Lyft took not 20% commission, but 20% of the amount it decided to share, plus all of the 83 cents. This abuse was multiplied, literally, on rides where there was Prime Time. If the $15.83 ride was payable with a PT of +200%, then the total fare paid would be $15.83 x 3 = $47.49. However, Lyft would first truncate the base fare down to $15.00 and only then apply the multiplier, so that the fare according to Lyft was $45.00, even though the pax paid $47.49. Net result = Lyft would take all of the truncated $2.79 plus its commission of 20% on the rest of the fare.

We're talking pennies per ride here, but mathematically the median amount illicitly taken per ride by Lyft would be in excess of 40 cents per ride (mimimum taken = 0 cents, maximum taken on non-PT rides = 80 cents). In reality, the median amount would be greater, taking into account PT rides. But for argument's sake we'll call it 40 cents. Back in 2016 Lyft was doing 150m rides per year. Unjustly taking 40 cents average per ride from drivers netted Lyft an extra $60 million per year. Definitely not small change. And it was money that was payable to drivers for work done, but which Lyft just decided to pocket and keep for itself. However, I could not get any lawyers interested in taking the case. Interestingly, though, I did threaten Lyft with legal action over this and they stopped this practice shortly afterwards. I don't know if it was coincidence or not.
Totally understand but you missed one thing I said. How many drivers were actually affected? The ones who have not been suspended or deactivated have not been harmed, you would have a tremendous challenge proving the policy cost them money.

The suit you mention about ic's. You can make the argument that everyone was affected so you can sue on behalf of every driver that opted out.

With the rounding grab, maybe it is 60 million BUT you can only sue on behalf of the fraction of a percent of drivers that opted out of arbitration.

How do I know this? The suit against uber for breach of contract for up front pricing. 8k drivers opted out, 4k were adversely impacted by this to the tune of 600k. Uber settled for 400k I think, a pittance of the 60 or 70 million stolen from all drivers in just 5 or 6 months. The arbitration laws shield them from a lot of misdeads. I wanted to set up a web site that would generate the arbitration hearing paperwork for all drivers in order to flood uber with 1 million filings but couldn't get an attorney to help me with the site.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,881 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Totally understand but you missed one thing I said. How many drivers were actually affected? The ones who have not been suspended or deactivated have not been harmed, you would have a tremendous challenge proving the policy cost them money.
Many Lyft drivers are negatively affected by switcheroos. A few examples from my own experience:

- This morning I was headed to a pickup 1 mile away when Lyft tried to ride swap it for another pickup 6 miles and 10 minutes away. That would be an extra 5 miles of expenses, plus an extra 10 minutes that Lyft would require me to work without pay.

- I do not accept min fare shorties due to the high ratio of dead miles to total miles involved, which lowers revenue and profit per hour. However, there have been many occasions in which Lyft has to ride swapped decent rides with shorties, thus directly lowering my earnings

- I do not accept long dead-end rides to Nofaresville, from which I am unlikely to get a return ride. Lyft has often taken good, intracity, rides from me and replaced them with exactly these undesirable rides, thus lowering my earnings.

It would be easy to track and estimate the money I lose because of ride swaps, and then extrapolate it. However, at the end of the day, the exact calculation doesn't matter given that none of these class actions ever go to judgment; they all settle beforehand with UberLyft agreeing to pay an amount and, in many cases, agreeing to stop the offending behaviour.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
956 Posts
It’s not that hard to take them to arbitration since you are in Cali. Most lawyers stack arbitration cases and treat them like class action suits.

You are in the right. Keep sticking it to them. They are switching passengers on you based on passengers who pay for an express ride and paying extra for it. They aren’t giving any of the money to the drivers in these cases.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,104 Posts
.. I do not accept long dead-end rides to Nofaresville, from which I am unlikely to get a return ride. Lyft has often taken good, intracity, rides from me and replaced them with exactly these undesirable rides, thus lowering my earnings.
The likely reason for this is that the previous driver that accepted the trip arrived at the pax destination and had a peek of the destination. He/She shrewdly cancelled the trip knowing long trips at base rates are money losers. The Algorithm, then decides what other closer driver is there that can accept this garbage? Once it finds the next closest driver that had already accepted another trip it does a switcheroo and screwing the driver with an undesirable trip.

If the same thing happened on Uber, the algorithm will ping the next available driver for the pax with the undesirable long trip and this would continue until a driver is found or surge is implemented. Surge would be the market solution to getting a driver. If you have an undesirable long trip, then you must pay surge to compensate a driver to accept it. Otherwise, you never get picked up.


:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
 

·
Premium Member
2019 Reproduction 1860s era Stage Coach, Vintage Italian Leather Saddle, A-36 stainless horse shoes
Joined
·
8,298 Posts
The truth is that they are splitting hairs. They didn't fire you for not accepting they fired you for cancelling pings you never accepted.

Why sue when you can instead get a lawyer tot "blackmail" negotiate with Lyft to "buy you silence" come to terms with the company in a mutually agreeable manner.

The reality is that if what you're saying is true... if canceling due to lyft switching pings on you is why you got your contract terminated it sounds like you have a legal case.

Now the thing about blackmail back room negotiations is that you don't have to actually go thru arbitration because... well it's blackmail a perfectly legal backroom negotiation.
But remember it's not
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,618 Posts
As many here know, the Prop 22 law was passed in California, declaring that drivers for rideshare companies are independent contractors. One of the clauses in this law is:

View attachment 620709

That is, it is now against the law in California for a rideshare company to require any driver to accept any individual trip request from the company, and it is illegal to suspend or terminate any driver for not accepting any individual trip request from the company.

However, Lyft has a ride allocation protocol known as "ride swaps", which works as follows. Once a trip request has been accepted by a driver and he/she is heading to the pickup location, Lyft will, at its discretion, remove the ride from the driver's app and replace it with a different ride, without offering it to the driver beforehand and without giving the driver any chance to reject the trip. Lyft also fails to provide the driver with any details of these swapped rides such as the passenger's rating, the pickup location, or the estimated distance and time to the pickup location prior to imposing it on the driver. Furthermore, and most importantly, once Lyft has assigned the new, swapped, ride to the driver, if he/she cancels it then he/she runs the risk of being suspended or terminated by Lyft. This is in contravention of the law cited above, which strictly and very clearly prohibits suspension or termination for failure to accept trip requests.

This morning, Lyft broke the Prop 22 law when it suspended me for cancelling rides. Lyft had tried to force several swapped rides on me, removing from my Lyft app the trips that I had accepted and replacing them with new trips and new passengers that I had not accepted. I refuse to do swapped rides that I have not accepted and this morning I cancelled all of the attempted ride impositions by Lyft. I was then promptly suspended by Lyft:

View attachment 620714 Doesn't like they will figure out a way to terminate
your only recourse your only recourse is
This shows that Lyft is ignoring the very law that it wrote, supported and paid for. Lyft seems to be under the illusion that it does not need to abide by the law. Maybe it thinks this because it wrote this legislation. I beg to differ.
I drove for Uber for 7 years what about getting suspended. these Rideshare swaps are rare that's why I do them. if you continue to do things the company doesn't like they will figure out a way to terminate you proposition 22 or no proposition 22. The only recourse is to Sue and they know you probably won't do that.
so when you drive for Rideshare company you must ask yourself am I going to bite the hand that feeds me or not? I finally quit not for reasons that you're complaining about but just because the pay sucks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,618 Posts
When Lyft settled on the class action related to employee misclassification, I received $1,100. I remember going on vacation to Mexico afterwards, where I sat on the beach and raised a cold beer in thanks to Lyft, who had paid for both the vacation and the beer. Exactly how the powers that be calculated that I should get that amount, I don't know. Clearly, it was not the result of anyone sitting down to calculate actual damages, but a case of arriving at a figure that both parties found palatable - easy enough for Lyft to digest and sufficient for the drivers' lawyers to buy a beach house or three in the Hamptons.

I would assume that the number of drivers who opted out of arbitration is indeed small; it would probably be the same number who were opted out for the last legal assault against Lyft. I'm not sure of the numbers, but it will be in the low thousands, judging by the amount I got.

The motivation behind some kind of action against Lyft wouldn't be financial, though; it would be because I don't abide the idea of shyster companies like Lyft thinking they can do as they please. Previous legal action against Uber resulted in major behavioural changes at the company, including curtailing the ability of Uber to deactivate drivers for low acceptance rate and other abuses. The same could be done here for Lyft, in this small way.

I don't know how lawyers value these cases; it could go either way. I did try to get lawyers interested in a different Lyft abuse a few years ago. Back then Lyft would charge pax dollars and cents for a ride, say $15.83. According to the driver contract, Lyft would keep 20% for itself as commission and pay the driver 80%. However, what Lyft would do would be to first truncate the fare amount, so the $15.83 that the pax paid would become $15.00, with Lyft pocketing the 83 cents. Only then would Lyft divvy up the money, taking 20% of the $15.00. The net result of this, of course, was that Lyft took not 20% commission, but 20% of the amount it decided to share, plus all of the 83 cents. This abuse was multiplied, literally, on rides where there was Prime Time. If the $15.83 ride was payable with a PT of +200%, then the total fare paid would be $15.83 x 3 = $47.49. However, Lyft would first truncate the base fare down to $15.00 and only then apply the multiplier, so that the fare according to Lyft was $45.00, even though the pax paid $47.49. Net result = Lyft would take all of the truncated $2.79 plus its commission of 20% on the rest of the fare.

We're talking pennies per ride here, but mathematically the median amount illicitly taken per ride by Lyft would be in excess of 40 cents per ride (mimimum taken = 0 cents, maximum taken on non-PT rides = 80 cents). In reality, the median amount would be greater, taking into account PT rides. But for argument's sake we'll call it 40 cents. Back in 2016 Lyft was doing 150m rides per year. Unjustly taking 40 cents average per ride from drivers netted Lyft an extra $60 million per year. Definitely not small change. And it was money that was payable to drivers for work done, but which Lyft just decided to pocket and keep for itself. However, I could not get any lawyers interested in taking the case. Interestingly, though, I did threaten Lyft with legal action over this and they stopped this practice shortly afterwards. I don't know if it was coincidence or not.
I got $10,000 from an Uber lawsuit. I even forgot what it was about. However, it did compensate me for freebie i gave them for use of my vehicle, which accelerated the depreciation on my car by that amount.
 

·
Registered
1992 Toyota Tercel
Joined
·
2,036 Posts
In exchange for being given work that paid you 3x what anyone else would ever consider giving you for having zero skill doing something that any one of billions upon billions of others can easily do with 1 eye, 1 arm and 1 leg, and not even being good at what you do,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,881 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I drove for Uber for 7 years what about getting suspended. these Rideshare swaps are rare that's why I do them. if you continue to do things the company doesn't like they will figure out a way to terminate you proposition 22 or no proposition 22. The only recourse is to Sue and they know you probably won't do that.
so when you drive for Rideshare company you must ask yourself am I going to bite the hand that feeds me or not? I finally quit not for reasons that you're complaining about but just because the pay sucks.
You seem to have missed the gist of the thread. It's not about rideshare apps terminating drivers, Prop 22 or no Prop 22. No, this thread is about ride swaps, which are no longer rare occurrences, unfortunately, and are now against the new Prop 22 law.

But yes, one must ask oneself if one should take a stand or not, and there is no right answer. Rosa Parks, for example, decided that it was time for her to make a stand, although without doubt thousands of meeker souls before her would have asked themselves if it was worth "biting the hand that transported them", and decided to simply get up and move to the back of the bus in compliance.

It's also worth mentioning that it was thanks to drivers who did decide to bite the hand that fed them that you received your $10,000 in settlement, which you apparently received gratefully.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,618 Posts
You seem to have missed the gist of the thread. It's not about rideshare apps terminating drivers, Prop 22 or no Prop 22. No, this thread is about ride swaps, which are no longer rare occurrences, unfortunately, and are now against the new Prop 22 law.

But yes, one must ask oneself if one should take a stand or not, and there is no right answer. Rosa Parks, for example, decided that it was time for her to make a stand, although without doubt thousands of meeker souls before her would have asked themselves if it was worth "biting the hand that transported them", and decided to simply get up and move to the back of the bus in compliance.

It's also worth mentioning that it was thanks to drivers who did decide to bite the hand that fed them that you received your $10,000 in settlement, which you apparently received gratefully.
As far as I know, They can't legally terminate you for being party to a class lawsuit. If that's true, and I think it is, that renders your point moot.

I haven't driven for UberX since March of 2020, and it was rare before then. If it's not now, that may be.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top