XML 36 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Noncancelable Purchase Commitments In March 2018, the Company entered into a noncancelable arrangement with Amazon Web Services (“AWS”), a web-hosting services provider, under which the Company had an obligation to purchase a minimum amount of services from this vendor through June 2021. The parties modified the aggregate commitment amounts and timing in January 2019, May 2020 and February 2022. Under the most recent amended arrangement, the Company committed to spend an aggregate of at least $350 million between February 2022 and January 2026, with a minimum amount of $80 million in each of the four contractual periods, on services with AWS. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has made payments of $104.6 million under the amended arrangement. In November 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Motivate, a New York headquartered bikeshare company. Over the approximately five years following the transaction, the Company committed to invest an aggregate of $100 million in the bikeshare program for the New York metro area. The Company also assumed certain pre-existing contractual obligations to increase the bike fleets in other locations which are not considered to be material. As of December 31, 2022, The Company has made investments in excess of $100.0 million under the arrangement. In May 2019, the Company entered into a noncancelable arrangement with the City of Chicago, with respect to the Divvy bike share program, under which the Company has an obligation to pay approximately $7.5 million per year to the City of Chicago through January 2028 and to spend a minimum of $50 million on capital equipment for the bike share program through January 2028. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has made payments totaling $29.2 million and capital equipment investments totaling $37.0 million under the arrangement. As of December 31, 2022, the future minimum payments under the Company’s noncancelable purchase commitments were as follows (in thousands):
2023 | $ | 108,519 |
2024 | 88,800 |
2025 | 94,477 |
2026 | 9,396 |
2027 | 24,240 |
Thereafter | — |
Total future minimum payments | $ | 325,432 |
Letters of Credit The Company maintains certain stand-by letters of credit from third-party financial institutions in the ordinary course of business to guarantee certain performance obligations related to leases, insurance policies and other various contractual arrangements. None of the outstanding letters of credit are collateralized by cash. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the Company had letters of credit outstanding of $55.1 million and $53.1 million, respectively. Indemnification The Company enters into indemnification provisions under agreements with other parties in the ordinary course of business, including certain business partners, investors, contractors, parties to certain acquisition or divestiture transactions and the Company’s officers, directors and certain employees. The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend the indemnified party’s claims and related losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party resulting from actual or threatened third-party claims because of the Company’s activities or, in some cases, non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by the Company. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to the Company’s limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular provision. To date, losses recorded on the consolidated statements of operations in connection with the indemnification provisions have not been material. Legal Proceedings The Company is currently involved in, and may in the future be involved in, legal proceedings, claims, regulatory inquiries, and governmental investigations in the ordinary course of business, including suits by drivers, riders, renters, third parties and governmental entities (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, various wage and expense related claims, violations of state or federal laws, improper disclosure of the Company’s fees, rules or policies, that such fees, rules or policies violate applicable law, or that the Company has not acted in conformity with such fees, rules or policies, as well as proceedings related to product liability, antitrust, its acquisitions, securities issuances or business practices, or public disclosures about the business. In addition, the Company has been, and is currently, named as a defendant in a number of litigation matters related to accidents or other trust and safety incidents involving drivers or riders using the Lyft Platform. The outcomes of the Company’s legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. For some matters for which a material loss is reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses is not possible nor is the Company able to estimate the loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of nonmonetary remedies. Until the final resolution of legal matters, there may be an exposure to a material loss in excess of the amount recorded. Independent Contractor Classification Matters With regard to independent contractor classification of drivers on the Lyft Platform, the Company is regularly subject to claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, government investigations and other legal and regulatory proceedings at the federal, state and municipal levels challenging the classification of these drivers as independent contractors, and claims that, by the alleged misclassification, the Company has violated various labor and other laws that would apply to driver employees. Laws and regulations that govern the status and classification of independent contractors are subject to change and divergent interpretations by various authorities, which can create uncertainty and unpredictability for the Company. For example, Assembly Bill 5 (as codified in part at Cal. Labor Code sec. 2750.3) codified and extended an employment classification test set forth by the California Supreme Court that established a new standard for determining employee or independent contractor status. The passage of this bill led to additional challenges to the independent contractor classification of drivers using the Lyft Platform. For example, on May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General and the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the Company and Uber for allegedly misclassifying drivers on the companies’ respective platforms as independent contractors in violation of Assembly Bill 5 and California’s Unfair Competition Law, and on August 5, 2020, the California Labor Commissioner filed lawsuits against the Company and Uber for allegedly misclassifying drivers on the companies’ respective platforms as independent contractors, seeking injunctive relief and material damages and penalties. On August 10, 2020, the court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, forcing the Company and Uber to reclassify drivers in California as employees until the end of the lawsuit. Subsequently, voters in California approved Proposition 22, a state ballot initiative that provided a framework for drivers utilizing platforms like Lyft to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020. On April 20, 2021, the court granted the parties’ joint request to dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of the passage of Proposition 22. On May 5, 2021, the California Labor Commissioner filed a petition to coordinate its lawsuit with the Attorney General lawsuit and three other cases against the Company and Uber. The coordination petition was granted and the coordinated cases have been assigned to a judge in San Francisco Superior Court. On December 19, 2022, the California Attorney General’s and California Labor Commissioner's cases were stayed in San Francisco Superior Court pending the appeal of a Superior Court order denying Lyft’s and Uber’s motions to compel arbitration. On January 12, 2021, a separate lawsuit was filed in the California Supreme Court against the State of California alleging that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional under the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court denied review on February 3, 2021. Plaintiffs then filed a similar lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on February 11, 2021. Protect App-Based Drivers & Services (PADS) -- the coalition that established and operated the official ballot measure committee that successfully advocated for the passage of Proposition 22 -- intervened in the Alameda lawsuit. On August 20, 2021, after a merits hearing, the Alameda Superior Court issued an order finding that Proposition 22 is unenforceable. Both the California Attorney General and PADS filed appeals to the California Court of Appeal. Oral arguments were heard on December 13, 2022 and a decision is expected soon. Separately, on July 14, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the Company and Uber for allegedly misclassifying drivers as independent contractors under Massachusetts law, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company and Uber filed motions to dismiss, which were denied by the court in March 2021. In September 2021, the Massachusetts Attorney General served Lyft and Uber with a motion for summary judgment on the issue of driver classification. In January 2022, before Lyft and Uber served their opposition briefs, the court continued the summary judgment motion to allow the parties more time to conduct discovery. Certain adverse outcomes of such actions would have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, including damages, penalties and potential suspension of operations in impacted jurisdictions, including California or Massachusetts. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Such regulatory scrutiny or action may create different or conflicting obligations from one jurisdiction to another. The Company is currently involved in a number of putative class actions, thousands of individual claims, including those brought in arbitration or compelled pursuant to the Company's Terms of Service to arbitration, matters brought, in whole or in part, as representative actions under California’s Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code Section 2698, et seq., alleging that the Company misclassified drivers as independent contractors and other matters challenging the classification of drivers on the Company’s platform as independent contractors. The Company is currently defending allegations in a number of lawsuits that the Company has failed to properly classify drivers and provide those drivers with sick leave and related benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. However, results of litigation, arbitration and regulatory actions are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these driver claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. Unemployment Insurance Assessment The Company is involved in administrative audits with various state employment agencies, including audits related to driver classification, in California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Company believes that drivers are properly classified as independent contractors and plans to vigorously contest any adverse assessment or determination. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain. The Company accrues liabilities that may result from assessments by, or any negotiated agreements with, these employment agencies when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable, and the expense is recorded to general and administrative expenses. In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through March 31, 2018. The NJDOL issued an assessment on June 4, 2019 and subsequently issued an updated assessment on March 31, 2021. The assessment was calculated through April 30, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2017. We filed a petition to challenge the assessment, and are awaiting a hearing. The Company has also submitted payment for the principal revised amount of the assessment to stop interest from accruing on this amount. While the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain, the Company recorded this matter within accrued and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. Indirect Taxes The Company is under audit by various domestic tax authorities with regard to indirect tax matters. The subject matter of indirect tax audits primarily arises from disputes on tax treatment and tax rates applied to the sale of the Company’s services in these jurisdictions. The Company accrues indirect taxes that may result from examinations by, or any negotiated agreements with, these tax authorities when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and the expense is recorded to general and administrative expenses. Patent Litigation The Company is currently involved in legal proceedings related to alleged infringement of patents and other intellectual property and, in the ordinary course of business, the Company receives correspondence from other purported holders of patents and other intellectual property offering to sell or license such property and/or asserting infringement of such property. The Company disputes any allegation of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Consumer and Other Class Actions The Company is involved in a number of putative class actions alleging violations of consumer protection, civil rights, and other laws, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, or TCPA; antitrust and unfair competition laws such as California’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, among others. In 2021, the Company received a favorable outcome in a case in the Northern District of California alleging ADA violations with respect to Lyft’s wheelchair accessible vehicle (“WAV”) offerings in three Bay Area counties, Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (“ILRC”) v. Lyft, Inc. After hearing evidence at a 5-day bench trial, the court ruled that plaintiffs failed their burden to prove that Lyft violates the ADA. The plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling. Lyft is facing a similar ADA lawsuit seeking injunctive and other relief in the Southern District of New York, Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. On December 22, 2022, a magistrate judge recommended certification of three classes encompassing regions where Lyft does not currently offer WAV service (Westchester County, NY; New York State except New York City; and all other “non-WAV” regions in the U.S.). Lyft filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the district judge will issue a final decision, after which a trial date will be set. The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Personal Injury and Other Safety Matters In the ordinary course of the Company’s business, various parties have from time to time claimed, and may claim in the future, that the Company is liable for damages related to accidents or other incidents involving drivers, riders, renters or third parties using or who have used services offered on the Lyft Platform, as well as from third parties. The Company is currently named as a defendant in a number of matters related to accidents or other incidents involving drivers, riders, renters and third parties. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses, disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. There is no pending or threatened claim that has arisen from these accidents or incidents that individually, in the Company’s opinion, is likely to have a material impact on its business, financial condition or results of operations; however, results of litigation and claims are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to such accidents or incidents, in the aggregate, could have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, on January 17, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, granted the petition of multiple plaintiffs to coordinate their claims relating to alleged sexual assault or harassment by drivers on the Lyft Platform, and a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding has been created before the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, where the claims of these and other plaintiffs are currently pending. Regardless of the outcome of these or other matters, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits, its chances of success on the merits are still uncertain as these matters are at various stages of litigation and present a wide range of potential outcomes. The Company accrues for losses that may result from these matters when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. Securities Litigation Beginning in April 2019, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions have been filed in state and federal courts against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters named in the registration statement relating to the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) alleging violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in connection with the IPO. The putative class actions have been consolidated into two putative class actions, one in California state court and the other in federal court. The derivative actions have also been consolidated into one action in federal court in California. On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and overruled in part the Company's demurrer to the consolidated complaint. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on August 3, 2020. On February 26, 2021, the California state court struck additional allegations from the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2021. The Company filed its demurrer and motion to strike the amended claim on April 13, 2021, and on July 16, 2021, the California state court overruled the demurrer but struck additional allegations from the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The state court plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify a class action on June 24, 2021, and on January 25, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and stayed the case in light of the certified class action proceeding in federal court. In the California federal court class action, on May 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on September 8, 2020, the federal court granted in part and denied in part that motion. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on October 2, 2020, and the court certified the class action on August 20, 2021. On February 8, 2022, the parties informed the court they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case on a class-wide basis, and the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on June 16, 2022. On August 19, 2022, the putative lead plaintiffs in the California state court action filed a motion to intervene in the California federal court class action for purposes of challenging the proposed class action settlement. In response, the parties in the federal case submitted an amended stipulation of settlement on September 27, 2022 which now allows the state plaintiffs to opt-in to the federal class for purposes of objecting to the settlement, which rendered the motion to intervene moot. The federal parties’ motion for preliminary settlement approval was granted by the court on December 16, 2022. The court subsequently issued a scheduling order setting forth deadlines for notifying the class of the proposed settlement, for filing objections or opting out of the class, briefing schedules for the parties seeking final approval of the settlement and for seeking attorneys’ fees and costs, and setting a final fairness hearing for June 22, 2023. In the consolidated derivative action, at the parties’ joint request, the California federal court stayed the case on February 17, 2021. Although the Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them, the Company has accrued amounts related to such matters when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and the expense is recorded to general and administrative expenses.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration