FOLLOW US

Some settlements fade quietly into legal history. This one is being billed as the biggest of its kind the state has ever seen. Lyft has agreed to pay $272.5 million in what California officials call the largest settlement of its type in state history, resolving claims that the ride-hailing company misclassified drivers as independent contractors and withheld wages and benefits owed to them.

Four Legal Fronts Collapse Into One Deal

The proposed settlement resolves four coordinated legal actions at once — brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, the state labor commissioner, and individual drivers Brandon Olson and Million Seifu, who filed claims under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Officials Frame It as a Win for Drivers

"The bottom line is that eligible drivers are going to get paid," Bonta said Thursday at a press conference alongside other officials who litigated the case. "That's money in the pockets of the workers who drove this company's success" — a line meant to cut through the legal jargon and land squarely on what this settlement actually means for the people behind the wheel.

Lyft's Response: A Closed Chapter From a Different Era

Lyft, for its part, framed the settlement as resolving a dispute rooted in circumstances that no longer apply. "If approved, this settlement closes a chapter from a very different time, before Prop 22," the company told Law360 in a statement Thursday. Lyft went further, arguing that "the vast majority of rideshare drivers in California have always wanted to be independent contractors, and voters affirmed that when they passed Prop 22 in 2020, giving drivers new benefits and protections while preserving their flexibility." The company added that it has since "gone further than Prop 22 requires, becoming the only rideshare company with a fee cap."

A Company Defending Its Practices Even While Settling

Despite agreeing to the massive payout, Lyft maintained it "believes drivers have always been properly classified under the law, and we're glad to put this case behind us. We remain laser focused on helping create more earnings for drivers and more affordable rides for riders" — language carefully threading the needle between settling the case and admitting no wrongdoing.

How the Legal Battle Began

The attorney general and city attorneys originally sued Lyft back in 2020, alleging the company's classification practices stripped drivers of basic protections, including minimum wage, overtime pay and reimbursement for work-related expenses between 2016 and 2020, according to the attorney general's office. Lyft has denied these allegations throughout, and the proposed judgment explicitly states that the court has made no determination of liability.

The Legal Test That Started It All

This litigation emerged in the wake of California's adoption of its ABC test for determining whether workers qualify as employees or independent contractors. The California Supreme Court established this test in its 2018 ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, with state lawmakers later codifying it through Assembly Bill 5, according to the attorney general's office.

Proposition 22 Changed the Rules Mid-Fight

Proposition 22, approved by California voters in 2020, subsequently altered how that test applies specifically to app-based drivers. According to the attorney general's office, the litigation continued winding through multiple appeals and shifting legal landscape changes even as the underlying law itself evolved around it.

Defining Who Qualifies for Compensation

The settlement specifically covers alleged unlawful conduct occurring before Dec. 16, 2020, the date Proposition 22 officially took effect. Covered drivers include anyone who completed at least one Lyft ride starting or ending in California between April 5, 2016, and Dec. 15, 2020 — a four-and-a-half-year window now central to determining eligibility.

Breaking Down the Payment Schedule

Under the deal, Lyft would pay $120 million during the first year after the settlement takes effect, followed by an additional $152.5 million spread across the following three years. That later balance would carry 5% simple annual interest, adding incremental growth to the remaining payout over time.

Where the Settlement Money Actually Goes

Of the total fund, $20.44 million would go to the state and participating cities as civil penalties. Just under $15 million is reserved for attorney fees and costs tied to the PAGA plaintiffs, while Olson and Seifu may separately seek individual service awards of up to $20,000 each, according to the deal.

Prioritizing Drivers With Pending Claims

An additional $5.45 million is earmarked specifically for drivers who had pending wage claims before the labor commissioner at the time its action was filed — a targeted carve-out for drivers whose complaints were already working their way through the system.

How the Remaining Funds Get Distributed

The bulk of remaining money for eligible drivers would generally be divided based on the number of miles each driver logged while picking up or transporting passengers during the covered period. Notably, drivers who had pending wage claims before the labor commissioner would receive double credit for those miles — effectively weighting the formula in favor of drivers who had already flagged problems through official channels.

Lyft Covers the Administrative Costs

Beyond the settlement fund itself, Lyft will separately cover the first $1.25 million in settlement administration costs, then split any additional costs between $1.25 million and $1.75 million evenly with the settlement fund.

What This Settlement Doesn't Resolve

Importantly, this deal resolves government and PAGA claims specifically against Lyft over alleged misclassification — it leaves similar claims against Uber Technologies Inc. and related companies completely untouched, meaning this particular legal battle continues on a separate track entirely.

Attorneys Reflect on a Long Road to Resolution

Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, counsel for Seifu, told Law360 she's pleased with the outcome, though she didn't shy away from criticizing Lyft's litigation strategy along the way. "Lyft basically used arbitration to try to delay the day of reckoning for as long as it could, and ultimately now this is the result of those cases," she said.

Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten & Golden LLP, counsel for Olson, framed the settlement's significance more broadly. "This settlement is about holding corporate actors accountable both to the drivers who do the work day in and day out to create wealth for others, and to the people of California, who have had to pay — financially as well as through decreased public health and safety — when legal protections are ignored," he told Law360 in a statement.

The Legal Teams Behind the Settlement

The People of the State of California are represented by Mana Barari, Andrea E. Ringer, Sarah S. Kanbar and Nathanael Van Duzer of the California Attorney General's Office; Michael Bostrom, Jessica B. Brown, Joshua Crowell and Mark V. Soto of the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office; Kevin King and Eric LaGuardia of the San Diego City Attorney's Office; and Yvonne R. Meré, Matthew D. Goldberg and Molly J. Alarcon of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower is represented by David M. Balter, Alec L. Segarich and M. Colleen Ryan of the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Brandon Olson is represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, Rachel Bien, Adam L. Koshkin, Alina Pastor-Chermak, Mohsin M. Mirza and Daniel S. Stromberg of Outten & Golden LLP, along with Christian Schreiber of Olivier & Schreiber PC. Million Seifu is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC.

Lyft is represented by Rohit K. Singla, Katherine M. Forster, Miriam Kim, Jeffrey Y. Wu and Justin P. Raphael of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, along with Rachael E. Meny and Erin E. Meyer of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP.

For the tens of thousands of drivers who logged miles across California during those pre-Prop 22 years, this settlement finally puts a dollar figure on years of legal uncertainty — even as the company that cuts the checks insists it never did anything wrong in the first place.