This section adds documented court cases, lawsuits, government enforcement actions, and settlements involving traditional taxis and app-based ride services. The Twin Cities cases are presented alongside a small number of major national cases that shaped the industry. A complaint records allegations; it does not establish that the allegations are true. Outcomes are described separately. This is a sourced selection, not a complete docket of every case filed against every taxi or rideshare company.

1947–1949 — Federal antitrust case involving Yellow Cab and Checker

In United States v. Yellow Cab Co., the federal government alleged that Yellow Cab, Checker, and affiliated companies had combined to restrict competition in selling taxicabs to major operating companies, including companies in Minneapolis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed dismissal of the complaint and allowed the antitrust case to proceed. After trial, the district court found the evidence insufficient to prove the government’s allegations; in 1949, the Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the cab-company defendants. The allegations therefore did not become a final finding of an unlawful conspiracy. Read the 1947 Supreme Court decision and the 1949 decision after trial.

1974 — Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis

Passengers sued after a Yellow Taxi cab swerved off a highway and injured them. A jury initially found for Yellow Taxi, but the trial judge ordered a new trial because the jury had received conflicting instructions about the standard of care owed by a taxi company as a common carrier. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order for a new trial; it did not decide liability in the passengers’ favor. Read the Minnesota Supreme Court decision.

1981 — Maday v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis

Donna Maday was injured when her taxi collided with an uninsured motorist’s car in Minneapolis. A jury assigned 30% of the fault to Yellow Taxi, and the lower court limited the couple’s recovery against the cab company to that share. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed that limit and held Yellow Taxi jointly and severally liable for the full damages under the law then applied; it affirmed the decision in other respects. Read the Minnesota Supreme Court decision.

2007–2009 — Taxi license holders challenge Minneapolis market reforms

The Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition sued after Minneapolis began lifting its cap on taxi licenses, arguing that the reform damaged the market value of existing licenses and violated constitutional protections. A federal district court dismissed the coalition’s claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in 2009. The appellate court held that license holders had no protected property interest in the resale value created by a restricted market. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined review. Read the Eighth Circuit opinion.

2013–2015 — Wrongful-death lawsuit against Uber after a fatal San Francisco collision

The family of six-year-old Sofia Liu sued Uber and its driver after a vehicle driven by the driver struck and killed her and injured her family in San Francisco on New Year’s Eve 2013. The family alleged negligence. Uber disputed responsibility, including whether the driver was working for the service at the time. The case settled in 2015 for an undisclosed amount, so there was no public trial verdict on liability. Read the report on the wrongful-death settlement.

2015–2017 — Chicago Yellow Cab’s $25.9 million injury verdict and bankruptcy

Marc Jacobs and his wife sued Yellow Cab Affiliation and the driver after a 2005 crash left Jacobs with severe traumatic brain injuries. A Cook County jury awarded about $21.98 million to Jacobs and $3.96 million to his wife. In 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the verdict, including the finding that the taxi affiliation could be responsible as the driver’s apparent principal. Yellow Cab Affiliation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly after the 2015 verdict. Read the Illinois appellate decision and the federal bankruptcy case record.

2015–2016 — San Francisco Yellow Cab Cooperative bankruptcy after passenger-injury judgment

A San Francisco jury found Yellow Cab Cooperative liable for an April 2011 crash involving passenger Ida Fua and awarded her $8 million for serious injuries, including brain injury and partial paralysis. Yellow Cab had argued that the driver was an independent contractor and that the company was not responsible. The cooperative filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2016, about nine hours after the verdict, and the bankruptcy process included accident victims among the creditors. Read reporting on the verdict and the bankruptcy creditors’ committee case summary.

2017–2018 — Bankruptcy trustee sues over the collapse of a former Chicago cab affiliation

After Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc. dissolved and entered bankruptcy, its Chapter 7 trustee sued Taxi Affiliation Services and former officers, owners, and related entities. The trustee alleged that insiders transferred money and business assets in a way that left the old cab affiliation unable to pay creditors, while a successor operation continued using valuable Yellow Cab trade dress. The defendants denied the claims. In 2018, a federal judge dismissed some counts but allowed several fraudulent-transfer and related claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage; that was not a final finding of fraud. Read the federal court’s order.

2016–2017 — Minnesota passenger’s civil suit against Uber

A Minnesota woman filed a tort lawsuit against Uber alleging that an Uber driver sexually assaulted her in Minnesota in August 2016. Uber asked to move the suit from California to Minnesota. The federal judge granted the transfer because the alleged incident, most witnesses, and key evidence were in Minnesota. That venue ruling did not decide whether the alleged assault occurred or whether Uber was liable. Read the federal court’s transfer order.

2017–2019 — Minnesota Uber driver’s wage and expense lawsuit

In Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Minnesota driver filed a proposed class action against Uber and its subsidiary Rasier. The complaint alleged that drivers were misclassified as independent contractors, paid less than minimum wage, not reimbursed for work expenses, and deprived of gratuities. The public docket records the case as terminated in 2019; the termination entry alone does not establish that a court found the allegations true. View the federal docket and read the filed complaint.

2017 — FTC requires Uber to pay $20 million over driver-earnings and vehicle-financing claims

The Federal Trade Commission alleged that Uber advertised driver earnings and vehicle financing terms that prospective drivers were unlikely to receive. The FTC said the company’s typical drivers did not earn the hourly and weekly amounts promoted in recruiting materials and challenged claims about Uber’s vehicle financing program. Uber agreed to a $20 million judgment and an order barring unsupported or misleading earnings and financing claims. This was a settlement of FTC charges, not a trial verdict. Read the FTC announcement.

2017–2018 — FTC privacy case and multistate settlement over Uber’s 2016 data breach

The FTC alleged that Uber misrepresented how it protected rider and driver information and failed to secure personal data. Separately, all 50 states and the District of Columbia reached a $148 million settlement with Uber over its delayed disclosure of the 2016 breach, which affected personal information belonging to about 57 million riders and drivers. The agreement required data-security and incident-response measures. Former Uber Chief Security Officer Joseph Sullivan was later convicted of obstruction and misprision of a felony for his handling of the breach and sentenced to probation; that criminal case was against the executive, not a civil finding against Uber. Read the FTC settlement update, the California Attorney General’s announcement of the $148 million settlement, and the Justice Department’s announcement about the former security chief.

2021–2022 — U.S. Department of Justice disability-fee case against Uber

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Uber, alleging that it charged wait-time fees to riders with disabilities who needed more time to board. In July 2022, the parties entered a multi-million-dollar settlement. Uber agreed to waive the fees for qualifying riders, provide credits and payments to affected riders, and change its practices. This was a settlement, not a trial verdict. Read the Justice Department’s settlement announcement.

2022 — Oakdale crash case involving an Uber ride

In Perez v. Affa, passengers visiting Minnesota alleged that an Uber driver and another motorist negligently caused a 2016 intersection crash in Oakdale, leaving the passengers with serious and permanent injuries. Uber and its subsidiary Raiser were also named. In 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings after finding a district court factual finding clearly erroneous. The appellate ruling addressed whether the case could proceed; it did not decide fault or damages. Read the Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion.

2023 — Uber driver deactivation and arbitration dispute

In Mariano v. Raiser, LLC, a driver who had used Uber’s platform for six years sued after Raiser permanently deactivated his account, citing problematic behavior and safety concerns. Mariano alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and deceptive trade practices, and said Raiser refused to arbitrate after he requested arbitration under the driver agreement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals revived the contract claims tied to the refusal to arbitrate and remanded those claims; it affirmed dismissal of the other claims. The opinion did not rule that the deactivation itself was wrongful. Read the Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion.

2023 — New York secures $328 million from Uber and Lyft for drivers

Following an investigation and legal action by the New York Attorney General, Uber agreed to pay $290 million and Lyft $38 million to settle claims involving deductions from drivers’ earnings and missing benefits. The agreements provide back pay and establish earnings and paid-sick-leave protections for covered New York drivers. These were settlements and policy agreements, not trial findings of liability. Read the New York Attorney General’s announcement.

2024 — Massachusetts settles driver-classification litigation with Uber and Lyft

Massachusetts announced a combined $175 million settlement with Uber and Lyft after litigation over whether drivers had been misclassified as independent contractors. The agreement included payments to drivers and new pay, benefit, and workplace protections. The settlement resolved the state’s case without a trial verdict. Read the Massachusetts settlement information.

2024 — Lyft settles federal lawsuit over driver-earnings advertising

The Justice Department sued Lyft after an FTC investigation alleged that Lyft advertised hourly driver earnings based on the top 20% of drivers rather than typical results, sometimes including tips in the figures. The agencies said that could make earnings appear higher than most drivers achieved. Lyft agreed to pay a $2.1 million civil penalty, substantiate future pay claims, and explain the conditions attached to earnings guarantees. The settlement resolved the case without a trial verdict. Read the Justice Department settlement announcement and the FTC case record.

2024–2025 — Rideshare drivers sue their Minnesota driver association

Six current or former rideshare drivers sued the Minnesota Uber/Lyft Drivers Association and related entities, alleging deceptive practices and misuse of membership funds. News reports said the complaint alleged that more than $60,000 in member payments had been mishandled; the association’s side disputed the allegations. In 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court ruling that the drivers had standing to bring a consumer-protection claim at that stage. This lawsuit names the driver organization, not Uber or Lyft, and the appellate ruling was not a finding that the fraud allegations were true. Read the Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion and read local reporting on the allegations and response.

2025–2026 — FTC and states sue Uber over Uber One subscription billing and cancellation

The FTC and a coalition of state and local governments sued Uber, alleging that consumers were enrolled in Uber One or charged for it without valid consent, that promised savings were misleading, and that cancellation was not as easy as Uber advertised. Uber denies the allegations and says its signup and cancellation process is clear and lawful. Federal court discovery orders continued through October 2026; no final ruling on liability had been issued in the public docket by then. Read the FTC case record and a federal docket update filed October 15, 2026.

2025–2026 — U.S. sues Uber over alleged disability discrimination

The Justice Department filed a second major disability-rights lawsuit against Uber, alleging that Uber and its drivers routinely refused rides to people with disabilities, including riders with service animals and stowable wheelchairs, and sometimes charged improper cleaning or cancellation fees after denying service. The government sought changes to Uber’s policies and training, compensation for affected riders, and a civil penalty. On March 5, 2026, the court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed; that ruling was not a decision on the truth of the allegations or Uber’s ultimate liability. Read the Justice Department case record and latest posted status.

2025–2026 — Uber passenger-safety lawsuits reach federal jury verdicts

Thousands of passengers have filed lawsuits alleging sexual assault or misconduct by Uber drivers; the cases include claims that Uber failed to take adequate steps to protect riders. In February 2026, a federal jury in Arizona awarded Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million after finding Uber liable under an apparent-agency theory for a driver’s conduct. The jury did not find Uber negligent or its safety systems defective, and Uber said it planned to appeal. In April 2026, a North Carolina jury awarded a passenger $5,000 for battery after finding Uber liable for the driver’s conduct, while rejecting the passenger’s sexual-assault claim; Uber also challenged that verdict. These individual outcomes are not rulings on the other cases in the consolidated litigation. Read AP’s report on the Arizona verdict and AP’s report on the North Carolina verdict.

2026 — Lyft settles a Minnesota disability-access complaint

This was an administrative civil-rights complaint, not a court lawsuit. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigated after Lyft drivers repeatedly canceled rides for Tori Andres, a blind Minnesotan traveling with her guide dog Alfred. The department concluded that Lyft violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Lyft agreed to driver education, app and policy updates, follow-up on reports, three years of state monitoring, and a $63,000 payment to Andres. Read the Minnesota Department of Human Rights findings and settlement terms.

2026 — Lyft agrees to a $272.5 million California driver-classification settlement

California’s attorney general, three large city attorney offices, the state Labor Commissioner, and private plaintiffs announced a $272.5 million settlement resolving allegations that Lyft misclassified California drivers from 2016 through 2020 and thereby denied them wage and workplace protections. The agreement is subject to court approval. It concerns California drivers, so it is included as a major national-company legal development rather than a Twin Cities case. Read the California Attorney General’s announcement.

Reading the case record: Lawsuits contain claims made by parties; settlements generally resolve disputes without a trial finding. The summaries above identify when a court issued a decision, when an agency made a finding, and when a matter was settled. Current case status can change after the date of this update.