Instead of going to court, you and Lyft must resolve any legal disputes through private arbitration — a process run by a private company, not a judge or jury.
This clause removes your right to sue Lyft in court for any reason — including overcharges, safety incidents, or data breaches — and requires you to use private arbitration, which statistically produces lower consumer awards than jury trials.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Mandatory Arbitration and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Arbitration typically favors large corporations over individual consumers, limits discovery rights, and results in confidential proceedings that prevent consumers from learning about similar claims by others.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: This provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.), which generally preempts state law challenges to arbitration agreements. California's McGill rule (McGill v. Citibank, 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017)) creates a carve-out for public injunctive relief claims, which cannot be compelled to arbitration under California law. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has historically scrutinized mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts under Dodd-Frank §1028.
Compliance intelligence locked
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
Watcher: regulatory citations. Professional: full compliance memo.