Topics
Latest
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images / Getty Images
Apps
Biotech & Health
mood
Image Credits:AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images / Getty Images
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
enterprisingness
EVs
Fintech
fundraise
contrivance
game
Government & Policy
ironware
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
seclusion
Robotics
security system
societal
Space
startup
TikTok
transportation system
Venture
More from TechCrunch
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
video
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
Lyft has concord to a $ 2.1 million settlementproposed by the FTCover the railcar - hailing company ’s “ deceptive lucre claims about how much money drivers could expect to make . ”
As documented in the FTC ’s charge papers , Lyft systematically inflated the income it advertize to driver it was attempting to recruit in 2021 and 2022 . For instance , in LA it suggested drivers would be offered up to $ 43 per hr . “ Lyft failed to disclose that these amounts did not represent the income an average machine driver could expect to earn , but instead were based on the earnings of the top one - fifth of drivers , ” and the remainder was up to 30 % .
“ Lyft claim that Drivers in New Jersey could earn up to $ 34 per hr when Lyft ’s own calculations put the median pay at only $ 25 per hr . In the same calendar month , Lyft claimed that Drivers in Boston could earn up to $ 42 per hour when median lucre were just $ 33 per hour , ” the FTC wrote in the complaint .
Not only that , but the advertised hourly rates were inclusive of customer - provided tips , while imply to any normal reader that it was a base rate . So the good rate was likely $ 5 to $ 10 low even than the unstated average .
It also made misleading promises about promotions and incentive , according to the FTC .
“ For case , one warranty foretell equipment driver they would make $ 975 if they discharge 45 rides in a weekend . But these warrantee did not clearly disclose that number one wood were only paid the difference between what they actually earned , and Lyft ’s advertise ensure amount , ” the FTC said in its press release .
While this was light in the fine print , the spoken language used was misleading , and Lyft received thousands of complaints from its drivers — a mathematical group that , the FTC points out , is composed disproportionately of people for whom English is not their native words .
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
The FTC warned Lyft in October 2021 that its practices were illegal , and it must halt — but it continued them , and the result is this order and penalisation .
Of course , $ 2.1 million is a drop in the bucket for Lyft , one of the two globally predominant drive - hailing platforms . But the caller has already had to influence up its payment promises : It ca n’t admit crest in its estimate of hourly rates , for instance , and it must more clear explain furtherance like “ guaranteed ” income .
Notably , two FTC Commissioners dissented from the conclusion , say that the agency was pass in pursuing the “ clear up to ” language as deceptive . But Commissioner Ferguson ’s contestation , while coherent , amounts to “ consumer know that advertisers exaggerate and lie ” and would not take the “ clear up to ” identification number as example of gestate earnings . Perhaps more convincingly , they argue that Lyft was n’t adequately advise it was breaking the law .
“ Nor are workers protect when the Commission claims victory on dubious legal theories as it locate complaints for pennies on the dollar with businesses that are happy to pay the Commission to go forth , ” compose Ferguson — a fair point .
