Yesterday's Missouri Court of Appeals decision in Ameer v. Lyft, Inc. reversed a grant for summary judgment for Lyft, allowing plaintiff's claim to go forward on product liability and negligence theories; here's part of the analysis (from Judge Robert Clayton, joined by Judge Michael Wright and, as to the negligence claim, Judge John Torbitzky). The trial court granted summary judgment from Lyft, but the appellate court reversed, reasoning (in part) that Lyft's allowing people to "fraudulently and anonymously request[]" a ride may be legally actionable. Lyft "purportedly failed to contain multiple protections for its drivers including," among other things, "adequate data verification technology pertaining to a passenger's age, identity, or violent propensity":
Plaintiff avers Lyft implemented measures in states other than Missouri requiring purported passengers using the Lyft App with an anonymous form of payment "to provide a driver's license, state ID, or another type of document that shows their name or mailing address," allowing Lyft to discover that a "fictitious person who set up the Lyft account d[oes] not exist[ ] and that the form of payment [i]s unverified." Notably, to allow Lyft to be foreclosed from liability in Missouri for omissions in the design of the Lyft App which were allegedly implemented in other states would incentivize Lyft and other mobile application developers to: (1) not put protections in place for Lyft drivers and customers in Missouri; and (2) eliminate protections for its users in other states….
Plaintiff's petition specifically avers Lyft implemented measures in its App in other states requiring purported passengers using a Lyft account with an anonymous form of payment "to provide a driver's license, state ID, or another type of document that shows their name or mailing address," allowing Lyft to discover that a "fictitious person who set up the Lyft account d[oes] not exist[ ] and that the form of payment [i]s unverified" ….
