Lyft Lied About How Much Its Drivers Get Paid. Here’s Why That Matters.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Corporate Intent Exposed
3. The Corporations Get Away With It
4. The Cost of Doing Business
5. Systemic Failures
6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control
8. Profits Over People
9. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities
10. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability
11. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

---

1. Introduction

In a damning legal complaint filed on October 25, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), acting upon a referral from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), laid out a series of disturbing allegations against Lyft, Inc. At the heart of the lawsuit is the contention that Lyft’s widely disseminated driver recruitment advertisements contained false or misleading earnings claims, betraying the trust of tens of thousands of individuals who signed up to drive in hopes of financial stability. According to the complaint, Lyft’s marketing materials repeatedly exaggerated hourly pay and advertised so-called “Earnings Guarantees” that drivers interpreted as lump-sum bonuses—only to later discover, after incurring fuel and maintenance costs, that the true payout could be far less.

Most damning of all is that, per the complaint, Lyft based its public earnings figures on the top 20% of drivers—meaning 80% of its driver force would unlikely reach those quoted pay rates. Further, the company allegedly included tips in these advertised “hourly” rates without making it clear that tips were already folded into the total. The complaint recounts how numerous drivers depended on the advertised projections to make major life decisions—whether to buy or lease a vehicle, pay for rideshare insurance, or even pivot careers—only to find the real-world numbers severely lacking.

The legal action doesn’t just isolate issues with Lyft’s driver recruitment practices; it speaks to the deeper crisis fueling corporate accountability debates under neoliberal capitalism. As alleged in the complaint, Lyft persisted in these misleading advertisements even after being specifically notified by the FTC in October 2021 that such conduct could result in civil penalties. This persistent disregard for regulatory warnings suggests more than a mere oversight. It hints at a corporate culture incentivized to maximize shareholder profit—even if it means misleading or confusing the very workforce powering the platform.

This article will examine the factual allegations from the complaint to illustrate the broader consequences for workers, local communities, and the integrity of the gig economy. In so doing, it will also contextualize how corporate greed, deregulation, and systemic failures—hallmarks of late-stage neoliberal capitalism—combine to let multinational entities off the hook, while workers bear the brunt of financial, social, and health impacts. A single note before proceeding: the case-specific facts within this article derive exclusively from the official legal complaint. Broader parallels and commentary on corporate predation under neoliberal capitalism serve as contextual analysis, highlighting a repeated pattern that extends well beyond a single rideshare platform.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The DOJ and FTC complaint describes how Lyft, recognized as a major player in the ride-hailing sector, engaged in a massive recruitment drive starting in early 2021. Demand for ride-hailing surged as COVID-19 vaccines became more widely available, and Lyft faced what executives internally called a “Supply Crunch.” To attract new drivers and entice existing ones to ramp up their hours, Lyft allegedly deployed a two-pronged marketing assault:

1. Inflated Hourly Earnings Claims: The complaint details that Lyft’s recruitment ads across social media, job boards, and search engines promised prospective drivers hourly rates based on figures achieved by the top 20% of drivers—often surpassing real-world median earnings by 20% to 30%. Consequently, a driver in Boston might see a claim of “Earn up to $42 per hour!” while internal Lyft data put the median earnings at around $33 per hour. For drivers who only skimmed the headline, the difference between hype and reality was enormous.
2. Misleading “Earnings Guarantee” Promotions: Numerous advertisements touted “Make $2,200 Guaranteed!” for completing a certain number of rides or “Get $975 This Weekend!” for fulfilling a set threshold within a prescribed window. But the fine print, according to the lawsuit, revealed that the driver would only receive the difference if their ordinary fare earnings fell below the stated threshold—effectively nullifying any “bonus.” This structure frequently confused drivers accustomed to other rideshare promotions that offered truly additional sums. Despite tens of thousands of driver complaints, Lyft carried on, often using near-identical wording that reinforced the misunderstanding.

According to the complaint, Lyft’s internal calculations tracked the 80th percentile of hourly earnings in each city or region, then advertised that number publicly alongside disclaimers like “up to.” This practice, say the regulators, deceived the majority of prospective drivers, who stood little chance of reproducing those top-tier results. The company simultaneously included all types of income—fares, tips, and occasional subsidies—in “hourly” rates, omitting that tips were already part of the figure rather than an addition on top of it.

One of the more potent sections of the complaint centers on direct worker accounts. Many prospective or newly signed-up drivers described shock, confusion, or outright betrayal upon realizing the promotions did not match real-world earnings. Their statements, paraphrased in the complaint, paint a picture of dashed expectations: “If it says you get $140 for 24 rides, that’s what you should get,” wrote one driver in April 2021. “Next time, the promotion needs to be worded differently so that it’s not misleading.” Another wrote, “You guys need to be more specific and clear with the verbiage on your promotions … I had two other people look at this and they said the same thing. This is very frustrating.” Over and over, these complaints allege the same misrepresentation—and over and over, the complaint says, Lyft failed to correct course in a substantive way.

In an economy where many workers juggle part-time gigs and rely on these platforms for daily survival, such misrepresentations can lead to substantial losses. Gas, vehicle maintenance, and insurance are not minor line items—they can eat up what little margin drivers have. Falsifying or obscuring real earning potential sets the stage for deeper systemic exploitation.

---

3. The Corporations Get Away With It

Why do companies like Lyft so often escape immediate accountability for these practices? The complaint implicates several factors that reflect broader regulatory shortcomings. Chief among them is the uneven enforcement environment. The FTC, having earlier determined that certain earnings misrepresentations are unfair or deceptive, warned Lyft explicitly in October 2021 through a “Notice of Penalty Offenses Concerning Money-Making Opportunities.” Still, the complaint states Lyft continued to run problematic ads for months afterward.

This underscores a grim reality: large corporations can sustain an ongoing strategy of “delay and deny,” counting on labyrinthine legal processes and less-than-immediate sanctions. By the time enforcement catches up, the damage to drivers has already been done. As the complaint notes, Lyft only ceased some aspects of its allegedly misleading hourly earnings claims after it learned the FTC was investigating. This pattern suggests a deliberate approach—move fast and collect new drivers with appealing marketing, then adjust or pivot only after regulators actively intervene.

Meanwhile, the broader ride-hailing ecosystem is rife with precarious labor conditions, from uncertain hours and wage fluctuations to minimal social safety nets. Drivers contract as “independent contractors,” in turn absorbing costs usually shouldered by employers. This classification has allowed corporate platforms to operate with minimal overhead, minimal obligations to workers, and greater freedom to advertise aggressively in pursuit of market share. As alleged in the complaint, Lyft exploited that driver classification to push for new recruits without honestly describing the real potential pitfalls of gig work, from hidden costs to diminished earnings over time.

Moreover, partial compliance with regulations often becomes a superficial public relations tactic. The complaint references how Lyft used disclaimers—buried in small print and overshadowed by splashy “$40 per hour!” language. Regulators argue that these disclaimers do little to correct misimpressions. Nonetheless, in legal battles, corporations often wave disclaimers as proof of good-faith compliance. It’s a dance around accountability: put the “up to” language in bold headlines, tuck the disclaimers away, and watch the new driver sign-ups roll in.

Such practices are emblematic of the profit-maximization ethos that drives the entire sector—an ethos that thrives when accountability is too slow, too fragmented, or too weak.

---

4. The Cost of Doing Business

In dissecting the complaint, it becomes clear how the alleged misconduct translates into an industry-wide culture where penalties are factored in as a “cost of doing business.” The pursuit of profit overshadowing corporate social responsibility is not an anomaly; it’s part of a well-documented pattern within neoliberal capitalism.

Financial Maneuvers and Shareholder Profit Motives

Companies in this space bank on growth and brand recognition to please shareholders. According to the complaint, Lyft regularly tallied data on “top earners” and used that slice of the workforce to advertise “up to $40 per hour!” or “up to $34/hour in New Jersey!”—figures that set unrealistic expectations for the majority of would-be drivers. The impetus is to fuel user acquisition: in other words, more drivers on the road to serve an expanding ridership. By featuring the 80th percentile in marketing, Lyft could claim high hourly rates—even though internal calculations, as outlined in the complaint, consistently showed that the median driver often made significantly less.

When consumer protection authorities eventually probe these earnings claims, the legal costs, settlement fees, or fines, if any, may pale in comparison to the revenue generated. In effect, the occasional regulatory lawsuit becomes just another line item. This dynamic fosters a corporate environment where misleading claims can become routine. Whenever a new “Supply Crunch” arises or a competitor threatens market share, the marketing department might find it enticing to oversell and under-disclose. By the time regulators intervene, the short-term objective—flooding the platform with drivers—has already been met.

How Drivers Shoulder the Hidden Costs

While shareholders enjoy the potential upside, drivers absorb the brunt of the downside. Cars depreciate from the intense wear and tear of near-constant use. Maintenance costs, gas price fluctuations, and more come out of the drivers’ pockets. One driver complaint included in the lawsuit laments: “This is unacceptable and not fair… I was counting on that money. As the driver, I expected to be paid for the service I rendered.” Such disappointment is deeply rooted in the mismatch between promotional claims and actual net pay.

That mismatch is not just a dollars-and-cents issue. Drivers may reorganize their lives around the hope of making a livable wage. Some purchase expensive vehicles to meet the platform’s qualification standards, while others reduce hours at more stable jobs in anticipation of a better financial future with ride-hailing. But when the real numbers don’t materialize, they face not just a financial shortfall but also potential credit damage, repossessions, and the stress of juggling side gigs.

Earnings Guarantees vs. Real Bonuses

The second major financial hook identified in the complaint is the “Earnings Guarantee.” This promotion suggests a fixed or lump-sum reward but, as the complaint alleges, typically only covers the shortfall between a driver’s normal earnings and the “guaranteed” amount. So if a driver meets the threshold organically, there’s no actual bonus. The intangible cost here is the driver’s goodwill. Tens of thousands of drivers, the complaint says, interpreted these “guarantees” as bonus payouts over and above their standard fare. The shock and frustration from realizing they got no extra compensation—sometimes after working exhausting shifts—have eroded trust in the platform.

In short, the complaint contends Lyft’s business calculus included a willingness to blur the distinction between real bonuses and illusions of guaranteed pay. As countless driver testimonies in the lawsuit indicate, drivers felt hoodwinked, fueling large-scale dissatisfaction while the company pressed forward with an approach that helped ensure coverage in high-demand hours.

---

5. Systemic Failures

The Lyft lawsuit spotlights far more than one rideshare company’s alleged transgressions. It illustrates systemic failures where deregulation, regulatory capture, and the incentives of shareholder-driven markets can create fertile ground for corporate corruption. Under neoliberal capitalism, major policy changes over the decades have weakened regulatory oversight and emboldened companies to push legal gray areas until they face an explicit crackdown.

Deregulation and Loose Enforcement

Historically, the rise of gig economy giants happened in a policy landscape that often favored technological innovation at the expense of strict labor or consumer protections. The complaint underscores how Lyft, notified by the FTC in 2021 that continuing to misrepresent driver earnings could lead to civil penalties, simply did not stop until investigators were actively probing them. When you have limited resources for enforcement or a complicated bureaucracy, companies may weigh the risk and see that it’s still profitable to continue the questionable practice—at least for a while.

Regulatory Capture and Corporate Lobbying

Although the complaint itself does not detail lobbying efforts, parallels with other industries suggest that corporations often engage in behind-the-scenes persuasion to mold regulations or delay legislative crackdowns. One reason misleading earnings claims persist is that regulators depend on clear, well-documented evidence to act. Gathering such evidence takes time—and even then, when lawsuits are filed, the wheels of justice often turn slowly.

Profit-Maximization Incentives

At the end of the day, the complaint’s portrayal of Lyft’s marketing approach suggests an economic model that prioritizes growth in driver sign-ups above all else. If the top 20% of earners produce an appealing statistic, that’s the figure the marketing team plasters across social media. Even a swath of disclaimers cannot fully correct the impression that a new driver can easily achieve that rate. Meanwhile, drivers who discover they’ve been misled often drift away, replaced by a fresh crop of recruits drawn in by the same pitch. This churn-based recruitment tactic is, unfortunately, not unique to ridesharing; it’s a well-worn pattern in scenarios where workers are treated as disposable.

(Note on Contextual Analysis: The above themes of deregulation, regulatory capture, and profit-maximization are not directly from the complaint. They provide a broader lens for why cases like this arise under neoliberal capitalism.)

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The allegations leveled against Lyft are not an isolated phenomenon. The lawsuit’s details—the inflated figures, the disclaimers buried in legalese, the ephemeral “Earnings Guarantees”—all reflect an underlying corporate ethics challenge. Under the relentless drive of neoliberal capitalism, some corporations systematically misrepresent facts to entice consumers and workers, all to gain a competitive edge. When critics point to a “pattern of predation,” they imply these issues are baked into the system, rather than the result of a few bad actors.

Corporate Greed and Wealth Disparity

Countless gig workers, many from underrepresented communities, rely on short-term or flexible work for survival. Enticed by a potential “$40/hour wage,” or a “$2,500 monthly guarantee,” they risk capital—be it through car loans, insurance, or specialized training. If reality falls short, who shoulders the burden? Drivers, not corporate executives or shareholders. Over time, this dynamic exacerbates wealth disparity: profits flow upwards, while the everyday labor force, sold on the dream of quick earnings, can end up treading water.

Corporate Corruption and a Culture of Minimal Accountability

When a complaint references tens of thousands of customer service issues, it’s not a mere PR hiccup; it’s a systematic breakdown of corporate accountability. Again and again, the complaint documents driver statements describing a feeling of betrayal. This persistent theme fosters a sense that corporate greed has overshadowed the welfare of those at the bottom of the chain. And, crucially, these same workers rarely have the resources to launch a major lawsuit—meaning that government intervention is often their only lifeline. If the government is stretched thin or slow to intervene, the misconduct thrives unchecked.

As the complaint demonstrates, Lyft’s marketing materials varied—some ads shouted “Earn Up to $44/hr!” while others teased “$2500 in your first month!” Without robust oversight, corporations can craft carefully worded disclaimers that do little to correct false impressions in practice. When confronted by regulators, the company might claim the disclaimers sufficed. This legal “wink and nod” is precisely the kind of tactic that proliferates under a neoliberal environment where the onus is on the individual to read the fine print—assuming they even see it.

“It’s Just the Way Things Are Done”

Perhaps most troubling is the complaint’s demonstration that Lyft continued with misleading claims after receiving explicit notice from the FTC. This highlights a brazen calculus: continuing a lucrative strategy despite knowing it falls into legally questionable territory. The company did not stop until the FTC’s investigation forced its hand. Such repeated patterns are not accidents. In an environment shaped by corporate greed, it’s often the rule, not the exception.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

A revealing aspect of the complaint is how Lyft deployed disclaimers and partial clarifications in the face of driver confusion. This approach fits neatly into a well-known corporate PR playbook that emerges whenever allegations of corporate corruption or wrongdoing arise.

Denials, Half-Measures, and Legalistic Disclaimers

The PR blueprint typically unfolds in stages. First comes denial or minimization: the disclaimers—“up to” or “results may vary”—are trotted out as alleged evidence that the ads were never misleading. Next, if the complaints gain traction, the corporation might quietly alter certain ad wording without fully acknowledging wrongdoing. The complaint shows that Lyft changed its “hourly earnings” figures over time, lowering some from $43 to $34, for instance, but still continuing to highlight the top 20% threshold in big, bold claims.

Greenwashing, “Community” Initiatives, and Overblown Goodwill

While not mentioned explicitly in the complaint, parallel strategies from other industries show how corporations deflect negative attention by promoting philanthropic or community-based gestures. For instance, a rideshare company might tout how it supports local nonprofits or invests in cleaner vehicles—“corporate social responsibility” measures. Meanwhile, workers contending with alleged wage misrepresentations see minimal direct relief. The effect is to muddy the waters: the public sees a philanthropic facade, while the underlying issues remain unaddressed.

Handling the Media Spotlight

Once regulators file a complaint, a company’s PR machine often swiftly assures the public that the allegations are “baseless,” “without merit,” or “inaccurate.” The complaint notes that Lyft utilized disclaimers to “alleviate confusion,” but the government calls these disclaimers wholly insufficient. Such a stance is typical of corporate defense statements, which often rely on the complexity of disclaimers to create plausible deniability. Then, after extended legal wrangling, a settlement or an altered marketing policy may emerge, but not before months (or years) of confusion for the workforce.

The lesson from the complaint is that real contrition, if it materializes, often arises only under legal duress. Until then, standard PR damage control tactics allow questionable practices to persist with minimal accountability.

---

8. Profits Over People

Perhaps the core moral indictment in the complaint is that Lyft, by its alleged actions, effectively chose profits over people. The complaint methodically details that tens of thousands of drivers complained about “Earnings Guarantees” not translating to actual bonus payouts, or about inflated hourly rates that simply did not match on-the-ground conditions. These drivers, many of whom are reliant on gig work for basic sustenance, felt hoodwinked, incurring real costs on the promise of ephemeral returns.

Shareholder Interests as the Prime Directive

In a public company, success often hinges on quarterly performance metrics. Recruitment drives yield more driver availability, which can enable faster service for riders, which presumably boosts brand reputation—and, ultimately, the share price. Within that cycle, workers and their well-being can become secondary considerations. The complaint’s narrative underscores how marketing campaigns emphasizing “$40 per hour” or “$2,200 guaranteed” can be extremely compelling, drawing in large numbers of new drivers. Yet from a driver’s vantage point, the realized paychecks often tell a different story.

Interesting Quote #1:

“Under the bright lights of corporate advertising, drivers see promises of a better life—only to discover that such assurances are dwarfed by the harsh realities of gig economics.”

Amplifying Existing Inequalities

When corporations make these large-scale, questionable claims, it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities that are more likely to seek flexible gig opportunities. The complaint shows that Lyft did not meaningfully differentiate ads to accommodate non-English-speaking drivers, compounding confusion around “Earnings Guarantees.” One driver’s complaint, paraphrased in the lawsuit, reads: “I don’t understand. I was told… but I haven’t received anything.” The realization of being misled stings hardest for those who can least afford to lose out.

A Culture of Disposability

This approach fosters a culture where drivers are churned through the system, quickly replaced by the next wave lured by lofty promises. Once negative experiences circulate broadly, or once certain drivers drop out, fresh hires fill the gaps—again, stoking profits for the platform with minimal accountability. By the time regulators can intervene, the ephemeral workforce has little recourse. The complaint demonstrates exactly this dynamic.

---

9. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

Beyond the arguments about false advertising lies an all-too-human dimension. Rideshare drivers occupy a unique intersection of labor, customer service, and on-the-ground logistics. They often work alone, assuming the financial risks of acquiring vehicles, licensing, and maintenance. Communities already struggling economically—where stable jobs are scarce—become prime recruitment targets. The complaint brings those struggles into sharper focus by sharing drivers’ own words of frustration.

Worker Exploitation and Community Destabilization

• Exploitation Through Misinformation: The complaint describes how drivers were often under the impression they were working toward a sizable “bonus,” only to realize they had already earned that amount through basic fares. This sense of betrayal fosters hostility, not just toward the company, but to the entire gig ecosystem.
• Local Economic Impact: Neighborhoods reliant on gig economy income see a ripple effect. When drivers fail to realize the expected pay, local businesses also lose out—money not earned by the driver is money not spent in their communities.

Public Health Risks

While not stated explicitly in the complaint, a workforce stressed by precarious earnings and forced to work longer hours can face heightened risk of accidents, fatigue, or compromised physical and mental health. In times of economic desperation, some drivers push themselves to drive extended shifts to reach the unattainable “hourly wage” that marketing implied was feasible. This scenario can pose dangers not only to them, but also to passengers and the broader public.

The Emotional Cost

The complaint’s direct inclusion of driver complaints exposes the anger and heartbreak triggered by ongoing confusion. One driver’s complaint from July 2021 reads: “It never said complete 220 rides and get the difference…This is wrong. Very very disappointed. I regret working for you. I was counting on that money.” That sense of betrayal can lead to distrust of not only one platform but the gig economy at large—and perhaps the broader corporate system, too.

Interesting Quote #2:

“Thousands of drivers confronted the depressing gap between corporate hype and lived reality, left to face mounting car bills and the mental toll of broken promises.”

---

10. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

Though this complaint focuses on Lyft’s alleged wrongdoing in the United States, the patterns mirror global trends. Multinational corporations frequently adopt an expansion-first mindset, often facing minimal scrutiny until a public scandal erupts. In many countries, gig platforms are even less regulated than in the United States, allowing corporate corruption and corporate greed to flourish unchecked.

Deregulation in Emerging Markets

Across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, governments—hungry for investments—may adopt a more laissez-faire approach to new technologies. As a result, local drivers can suffer from even lower wage floors and minimal labor protections. One can easily imagine that misleading “Earnings Guarantees” would compound the exploitation in countries where official oversight is scarce and local labor laws are not enforced robustly.

The International Chorus of Worker Rights

Recent years have seen an uptick in protests and class-action lawsuits. This lawsuit against Lyft exemplifies the broader wave, as gig workers across continents demand that legal frameworks catch up to the new brand of precarious employment. The complaint, if it leads to a robust outcome, might signal to other governments that unscrupulous earnings claims deserve swift regulatory responses.

The Challenge of Corporate Accountability

A notable challenge is that many of these companies are headquartered in nations where they hold considerable political sway. Even if one country’s regulators successfully hold the firm accountable, the same practices might persist in other territories. The complaint’s text underscores that Lyft’s questionable marketing was widespread and only halted—partially—under the specter of legal repercussions. Translating such enforcement globally, especially where lobbying and limited oversight remain systemic issues, is another uphill struggle.

---

11. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

In the wake of the allegations lodged against Lyft, many are left wondering what must be done to prevent similar scandals from recurring—and to protect workers from misleading marketing in the future. While the complaint itself seeks permanent injunctions and civil penalties, it also hints at deeper structural issues necessitating broad-based solutions.

Stricter Enforcement and Legislative Clarity

Regulators such as the FTC and state attorney generals’ offices wield significant power to levy fines, mandate corrections, and impose ongoing oversight. Yet, as the complaint shows, a single warning often proves insufficient. Large corporations only shifted course decisively once an in-depth investigation began. Real reform requires:

• Clearer Legislation: Laws specifically targeting earnings claims in gig work can provide less wiggle room for disclaimers and “weasel words.”
• Greater Staffing and Funding: Enforcement agencies need resources to proactively monitor large-scale ad campaigns, rather than only reacting to consumer complaints.

Corporate Ethics Reform

In an ideal scenario, corporate boards would integrate robust compliance standards that exceed the bare minimum. Transparent pay algorithms and verifiable, data-driven average earnings could help. However, the complaint details how Lyft’s “top 20%” approach was integral to hooking new drivers. Voluntary improvements may not emerge without external pressure.

Grassroots Consumer Advocacy

• Worker-Led Coalition: Drivers can form local and national alliances to share experiences and push for transparent communication from the platform.
• Public Awareness Campaigns: Ensuring prospective drivers understand precisely how “Earnings Guarantees” and “hourly wages” are calculated is key to safeguarding them from misleading claims.

Intersting Quote #3:

“In a system that incentivizes cutting corners, change must arise from both top-down enforcement and bottom-up advocacy, ensuring no driver stands alone in their fight.”

Conclusion

This lawsuit against Lyft exposes the deep rifts in a corporate model that, as alleged, is designed to trumpet “best case scenario” numbers while burying disclaimers that fail to protect the average worker. Countless drivers, enthralled by the possibility of a decent living, found themselves shortchanged. At the macro level, the complaint spotlights how systemic corporate corruption, bolstered by weak regulations and unrelenting profit-seeking, chips away at the economic security of working communities.

Will Lyft be compelled to drastically overhaul its marketing practices? That remains to be seen. But what is clear is the scope of the allegations: the complaint painstakingly portrays a culture in which the pursuit of extraordinary financial gains overshadowed the obligation to treat workers—independent contractors or otherwise—with honesty and clarity. Ultimately, no marketing spin can hide the human toll. The voices in the complaint remind us that behind every ad campaign and every “guarantee” stands a real person who can be misled into running their own finances into the ground.

Final Takeaway: When corporate greed meets systemic regulatory inertia, entire communities suffer. The only path forward is demanding robust accountability, thorough reform, and an end to business models that thrive by misleading those who can afford it the least.

---

source from the DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lyft-pay-civil-penalty-resolve-allegations-misleading-drivers-about-their-potential-earnings

Source from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/lyft_complaint.pdf