Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies 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. The outstanding letters of credit are issued under the Revolving Credit Facility (as defined below) and none are collateralized by cash. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had letters of credit outstanding that reduced the available credit under the Revolving Credit Facility (as defined below) of $60.7 million and $72.6 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 condensed 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, and regulatory and governmental inquiries and investigations, and in some situations has received subpoenas and requests for documents and information, in the ordinary course of business, including 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, competition, its acquisitions, securities issuances or business practices, or public disclosures about the Company or the Company's business. In addition, the Company has been, and is currently, named as a defendant in a number of litigation matters related to allegations of 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. The Company accrues for losses that may result from these matters when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and such accruals are recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. For certain 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. For matters where the Company has recorded a probable and estimable loss, until the final resolution of the matter, there may be 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, California Assembly Bill 5 (now codified in part at Cal. Labor Code sec. 2775) 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 September 28, 2023, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding the trial court’s order denying Lyft’s and Uber’s motions to compel arbitration. On November 7, 2023, the Company filed a petition requesting that the California Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal’s decision; the petition was denied on January 17, 2024, and the case was remitted to San Francisco Superior Court on January 29, 2024. The stay was lifted by the trial court on July 2, 2024, and the parties are exploring mediation. On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. In 2021, a group of petitioners led by labor union SEIU filed a separate lawsuit in a California court against the State of California alleging that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional under the California Constitution. 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 lawsuit. In August 2021, the trial court issued an order finding that Proposition 22 is unenforceable, but in March 2023, the California Court of Appeal reversed that decision and upheld Proposition 22, while severing two provisions that relate to future amendments of the measure. On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and unanimously upheld Proposition 22. 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. 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. 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. Trial took place from May 13, 2024 to June 3, 2024. On June 27, 2024, the parties reached a resolution to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and Massachusetts drivers have begun receiving new benefits and maintained their flexibility as independent contractors. The amount accrued for these matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. 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 Attorneys 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 also defending against allegations 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 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 for 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. On August 2, 2024, the NJDOL issued a revised assessment based upon a different methodology. The Company filed a petition to challenge the assessment. In June 2025, the Company notified the NJDOL that it would pay the assessment under protest. The Company recorded an accrual for this matter reflected within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. In 2021, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply for 2019. The NYSDOL subsequently extended the audit back to 2016. On December 22, 2022, the Company received an assessment for the 2016 to 2019 time period and on December 27, 2023, the Company received a revised assessment covering 2016 to 2020. The Company has appealed these assessments. While the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain, the Company recorded an accrual for this matter reflected within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. In June 2022, the California Employment Development Department ("EDD") opened an audit reviewing whether drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2018 to 2020. The EDD issued an assessment on June 9, 2023 and subsequently issued an updated assessment on June 27, 2023. The Company filed a petition to challenge the assessment. The Company and the EDD reached an agreement to resolve the assessment in March 2025. An accrual for this matter is reflected within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2025. 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. The Company is currently engaged in an ongoing dispute with the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) regarding the application of gross receipts taxes to rideshare. On December 20, 2024, the Company filed suit against San Francisco and San Francisco’s Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector seeking refund of approximately $100 million in payroll expense tax, gross receipts tax, homelessness gross receipts tax, penalties, and interest for the 2019 through 2023 tax years. The outcome of this matter is uncertain. 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. While the ultimate resolution of these matters is uncertain, the Company accrues for losses that may result from these matters when a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. Other Class Actions and Consumer Matters From time to time, the Company becomes involved in putative class actions, investigations, and other matters alleging violations of consumer protection, civil rights, and other laws; 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 July 2024, the Company went to trial in federal court in New York to defend against a class action alleging ADA and New York law violations with respect to the Company's wheelchair accessible vehicle ("WAV") offerings, seeking injunctive and other relief, in Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. On September 30, 2024, the district court ruled that plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof that the modifications they proposed at trial would result in nationwide WAV service. The district court dismissed the suit and entered judgment in favor of the Company. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2024, and the appeal is now pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. 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 or renters 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 multiple plaintiffs are currently pending. Other legal proceedings related to accidents, alleged sexual assault or harassment, or other safety incidents are pending in various jurisdictions and may similarly proceed to trial or final adjudication. 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 From time to time, the Company becomes involved in putative class actions, investigations, and other matters alleging violations of securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, and other causes of actions relating to the Company’s securities, financial disclosures, corporate governance and/or offerings.