Lyft Class Action Alleges Unwanted Telemarketing Calls

Ride-hailing company Lyft has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that it made unwarranted phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Kelissa Ronquillo states that she received a phone call to her number without providing consent from the caller. The plaintiff argues that she did not answer the call and after a few rings, the call stopped.

The Lyft class action lawsuit avers that dropping calls before they are answered is a common theme with automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS). If the call is not answered in a specific amount of time, the ATDS will hang up and move on the next number.

When plaintiff’s attorney called the number in question, the attorney was reportedly connected to Sidney from “Drive 4 Cash.”  

The Lyft class action lawsuit states that “The call then connected Attorney to a live agent named ‘Iris’ that said she would help attorney set up a Lyft account. Attorney asked Iris her company name and she said ‘Lyft’.”

“Defendant places these calls itself to solicit drivers to sign up for its business. Alternatively, the calls are placed by a third party on behalf of, for the sole benefit of, and with the knowledge of Defendant,” the Lyft class action lawsuit argues.

Ronquillo alleges that she did not download the Lyft app or use Lyft’s services. In addition, “Plaintiff was personally affected by Defendant’s actions because Defendant’s use of an ATDS and pre-recorded voice forced Plaintiff to live without the utility of Plaintiff’s cell phone by forcing her to silence her cell phone and/or block incoming numbers.”

Also, the plaintiff claims that she was also “frustrated and distressed” because even though she did not have any prior contact with Lyft, the company continued to contact her by calling her number.

“Defendant’s ATDS also has the capacity to and does, dial telephone numbers stored as a list or in a database without human intervention,” the plaintiff states.

The Lyft class action lawsuit notes that, “The TCPA was designed to prevent calls and messages like the ones described within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens like Plaintiff…[and] [i]n enacting the TCPA, Congress intended to give consumers a choice as to how creditors and telemarketers may call them.”

The plaintiff states that she is due $500 or $1,500 for each of Lyft’s violations of the TCPA. Ronquillo argues that Lyft “willfully or knowingly” utilized a pre-recorded voice along with an ATDS, which is a violation of the TCPA.

In addition, the Lyft class action lawsuit points out that “the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call.”

The putative Class Members include, “All persons in the United States whose cellular telephones were called using a pre-recorded voice and/or an automated telephone dialing system by Defendant and/or its agent/s within the two years prior to the filing of the Complaint.”

The plaintiff is represented by Yana A. Hart of Hyde & Swigart APC and Daniel G. Shay of the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay.

The Lyft Unwanted Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Ronquillo v. Lyft Inc. Case No. 3:19-cv-01230, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Keller Williams Realty Class Action Filed Over Robocalls

House Panel Passes 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund Extension

Tropicana Class Action Says Orange Juice is Artificially Flavored

How Does Talc Get Contaminated with Asbestos?

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION NOW