DOJ Sues Lyft for $53 Million, Alleging Rides Denied to Disabled Riders

• The Justice Department sued Lyft on November 9 under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is seeking $53 million for riders who say they were refused service.
• The complaint alleges drivers turned away riders who travel with service dogs or use wheelchairs and other mobility devices, and that Lyft then charged some of them cancellation fees.
• Lyft disagrees with the allegations and says drivers who break its service animal policy face permanent deactivation.

What Riders With Guide Dogs and Wheelchairs Say Happened at the Curb

The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against Lyft on Monday, November 9, in federal court for the Northern District of California. The complaint says Lyft broke Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the section that bars private businesses open to the public, private transportation companies among them, from treating people differently over a disability. The government is asking for $53 million for riders it says Lyft mistreated and who filed complaints with Lyft or with the government. It also wants a court order, a civil penalty and changes to how Lyft runs its service. Everything in the complaint is an allegation. No court has ruled on any of it, and Lyft contests it.

The core charge is a pattern of refusals. The suit says Lyft turned away “hundreds, likely thousands” of people with disabilities, among them riders with service animals and riders who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices. DOJ also says drivers routinely refuse passengers with stowable wheelchairs, and that Lyft billed improper fees, cancellation fees among them, to riders who were unlawfully left at the curb. A third allegation covers seating: Lyft, the government says, did not adapt its policies so a passenger with limited mobility can take the front seat when needed.

The government points to the volume of complaints as evidence that Lyft knew. The complaint says Lyft receives “thousands of complaints each year alleging disability-based discrimination” yet declines to change how it operates “to avoid discriminating against riders with disabilities.” The suit names three gaps in how the company responds: “Lyft is aware of, but fails to prevent and remedy, disability-based discrimination throughout its transportation services. Lyft does not adequately train its drivers and customer service representatives about their ADA obligations; monitor its drivers to prevent discrimination; or provide meaningful relief to people it has discriminated against,” the suit alleges.

Three Riders Named in the Complaint

The lawsuit draws on accounts from passengers the government says Lyft treated unlawfully. James Rath of Tennessee is legally blind and says drivers have refused him again and again from the time he acquired a guide dog in November 2025. At an airport in June, he says, a driver refused to take the dog and drove away without canceling the ride. Rath says he complained through Lyft’s chat feature and the company did not follow up until he posted about it on social media, after which Lyft gave him a $10 credit.

Virginia Prince of California, who is blind and uses a guide dog, says drivers turned her away over the animal, again and again. Jodie Simon of Nevada, whose mobility disabilities followed a near-fatal car accident, says she was denied several rides in a row in May 2024 over her wheelchair.

Several riders named in the complaint describe a second cost beyond the refusal: arriving late after the delays, and arguing with drivers who did not want a service animal in the car. The government also says Lyft knew of “widespread disability-based discrimination in its transportation services but has failed to prevent it,” the suit says.

Lyft Says It Has Policies and Penalties in Place

Lyft rejects the charge. In a statement, the company said: “Discrimination has no place in the Lyft community. We have long-standing policies requiring drivers to accommodate riders who travel with service animals or use foldable mobility devices, and drivers who violate these policies face serious consequences, including permanent deactivation,”

The company added: “We’ve backed those policies with in-app tools, like letting riders tell drivers in advance that they’re traveling with a service animal and reminding drivers that refusing one is against the law. We’ve cooperated with the DOJ throughout its review and remain committed to serving every rider, including riders with disabilities,”

Between the two sides, the gap is enforcement. Lyft describes a written policy, a penalty that ends a driver’s access to the platform and a warning inside the app. DOJ describes thousands of yearly complaints, training and monitoring that falls short, and, in Rath’s account, a follow-up that came only after a social media post. A court will have to decide which description holds up. States have been tightening vetting rules for Uber and Lyft drivers, so the question of who sits behind the wheel is no longer left to the platforms alone. The Lyft case adds a different test: what happens when a driver says no.

Lyft’s statement to another news outlet used different wording. “We disagree with the Department of Justice’s allegations,” the company said. “Every rider deserves access to rides, period. We have long-standing policies that require drivers to accommodate riders who travel with service animals or use foldable mobility devices for years, and drivers who violate these policies face serious consequences, including losing access to Lyft permanently.” It continued: “We’ve built that commitment into the app too, so riders can let drivers know ahead of time they’re traveling with a service animal and drivers are reminded that refusing one is against the law. We’ve worked with the DOJ throughout its review, and we’ll keep working to make sure every rider can get where they need to go.”

Two Justice Department officials described the case in public statements. “Individuals with disabilities should be able to rely on rideshare services free of discrimination,” said Jesus A. Osete, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We intend to uphold the ADA’s promise that people with disabilities are entitled to equal access in every part of public life, including essential transportation services.”

Craig H. Missakian, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, tied the Lyft case to an earlier one. “Our purpose in the Department of Justice is often to fight for what’s right on behalf of those who can’t fight for themselves. And there are few areas where the fight is more important than in ensuring equal access to transportation services for all Americans.” He added: “We take these allegations of misconduct seriously and, like our case against Uber for similar discriminatory conduct, we will devote all the resources necessary to make things right. The stakes are high and we owe those with disabilities nothing less.”

What the ADA Says About Service Animals

The Justice Department publishes plain guidance on how the ADA treats service animals at businesses open to the public. The definition is narrow: from March 15, 2011, the law recognizes only dogs, and only dogs individually trained to perform a job tied to the handler’s disability. The guidance lists guiding a person who is blind, alerting a person who is deaf, pulling a wheelchair, responding to a seizure and calming a handler with PTSD through an anxiety attack. A dog that offers comfort or emotional support alone falls outside the definition. Some states write broader definitions into their own laws, and the guidance sends readers to the state attorney general’s office for those.

A covered business gets a short script when the dog’s role is unclear. Staff can ask two questions: whether the dog is a service animal needed for a disability, and what task it has been trained to do. Staff cannot ask about the disability itself, require medical documentation, demand an identification card or training certificate, or ask the dog to perform. Allergies and a fear of dogs do not justify a refusal. A business can ask for the dog to leave in two situations only: the handler lets the dog get out of hand, or the dog is not housebroken. Fees follow the same logic. A customer with a service dog cannot be billed a charge that customers without one avoid, and a pet deposit must be waived.

The guidance comes with a disclaimer: it is informal technical help and creates no legal duty beyond the statute and the regulations. The legal question in the Lyft case is narrower. DOJ says Lyft is a covered private transportation company under Title III, that its drivers refused riders the law protects, and that the company failed to adjust its policies and practices. Title III also requires covered businesses to give equal access and to adjust their rules and procedures where reasonable.

What Riders and Drivers Can Do Now

Riders who travel with a service dog can use the tool Lyft says it built: tell the driver in advance, inside the app, that a service animal is coming. If a driver still refuses, save screenshots of the ride request, the cancellation and any fee. Report the refusal to Lyft through the app. The government’s $53 million demand is aimed at people who submitted complaints to Lyft or to the government, so a filed complaint is the record the case points to. Complaints to the government go through the Justice Department’s ADA site, which carries a File a complaint link, or the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 1-833-610-1264 (TTY), Monday through Friday. A rider charged a cancellation fee after a refusal can dispute the charge with Lyft and attach the same screenshots.

Lyft drivers face a clear line under the company’s own policy: accommodating a rider with a service animal or a foldable mobility device is required, and a violation can end in permanent deactivation. Under the ADA guidance, staff unsure about a dog can ask only the two permitted questions. For businesses that serve the public, the guidance says allergies and a fear of dogs are not valid reasons to refuse service. Whether and how that guidance applies to ride-hailing drivers is a question for the court. Lyft says its app reminds drivers that refusing a service animal is against the law.

Rules for these platforms differ by place. Cost is one example: Portland adds a $2 per-ride charge to every Uber and Lyft ride in that city.

What Happens Next

The Lyft case sits at its opening stage. Lyft will respond in court, and the allegations will be tested there. A comparison case exists: the Justice Department sued Uber on September 11, 2025, over similar conduct. Uber asked for dismissal, and the court denied that motion on March 5, 2026. No trial date has been reported for the Uber case. Who vets and monitors drivers is a live question in statehouses too, where Ohio’s proposal to recheck drivers would put that duty on Uber and Lyft.

Beyond the civil penalty, the relief DOJ requests has three parts: payments to riders who complained, a court order making Lyft stop discriminating and change its policies to follow the ADA, and ADA training for Lyft staff and drivers. Until a judge rules, Lyft’s stated rule for its drivers is that refusing a service dog is against the law.

Want more car content? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for the best automotive news and analysis on the internet.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to follow us on Microsoft Start.

Sources

• ADA.gov: ADA Requirements: Service Animals
• ABC News: DOJ sues Lyft for allegedly discriminating against people with disabilities

Reviewed by Preetam Gadekar