Capitalism wins!

It’s impressive that Lyft can profit off women getting raped in their cars. Lyft just paid out $25 million in a lawsuit that accused them of failing to protect passengers from predatory drivers. You might assume that money went to the victims, but no.

According to Alison Turkos, one of the survivor-plaintiffs suing Lyft, neither she nor any of the other survivors harmed by Lyft are receiving a dime. She told Jezebel in a phone interview that she fears people who see Thursday’s news will read “$25 million” and “settlement” and conclude that Lyft is paying survivors.

It’s not.

In 2017, Turkos was held at gun-point and kidnapped by a Lyft driver, taken to an abandoned park and gang-raped by him and several men. Now, Lyft is paying its ultra-rich shareholders $25 million. They say they were the ones who were harmed—because Lyft cost them money by mishandling sexual assault allegations. Lyft did not immediately respond to Jezebel’s request for comment for this piece.

Holding shares in Lyft is an investment in profiting off rape.


  1. says

    Ever since Uber got started I’ve heard these stories. It’s why I stick to Cabs. They may cost more but they are under strict supervision. Last time i took an Uber (about 4 years ago, in the before times) the guy went the wrong way down a freeway onramp. Only reason I called them was because it was a free trip home paid for by my boss.

  2. muttpupdad says

    What should we think of them, only slightly less favorable than the cryptominers. They rake in the profits with none of the investment for vehicle, insurance, or fuel cost.

  3. anxionnat says

    The last time I took an Uber (or Lyft–I forget which) was Thanksgiving 2019. My brother paid to have the driver take me home. The guy kicked me out of his car about 1/4 mile from my place, despite being told, repeatedly, where to go. Long story short, I would have died had a cat I knew well not heard me calling for help and went to get his mommies, who helped me get home. It took my brother over a year to get a refund. I’ve heard worse stories than mine. Yes, 1/4 mile was potentially lethal because I have an orthopoedic disability and don’t walk well. The cat heard me because I’d fallen outside his house and couldn’t get up. Cab drivers, as noted above, have an actual employer and have paid a bond, so they can be held accountable. Uber/Lyft drivers are, according to the companies, “independent contractors” who can’t.

  4. whywhywhy says

    This is similar in a legal sense to a recent case in Ohio where investors in First Energy got $180 million from the insurers of First Energy for First Energy having bribed the Republican leadership in Ohio (largest bribery case in the history of the state). The ratepayers and taxpayers (i.e. the citizens of Ohio) are the ones who are the victims of the fraud and corruption while the shareholders are the ones who are making money off our pain. CAPITALISM (current definition: the ones with the most wealth make the rules.)

    Side note the bill that First Energy bribed the Republicans to pass, did pass, and years later has still not been repealed (bottom line First Energy is getting extra fees from their customers on the order of Billions$, which helps investors and the investors get paid by the insurance for millions more). First Energy has admitted to the bribery, but there have been no indictments of anyone at First Energy. (A handful of state legislators and political hacks have been indicted, but this is a smidgeon of the folks who actually received the bribes.)

  5. robert79 says

    @4 anxionnat

    Wow… shouldn’t that be an attempted manslaughter charge to the driver, not a “refund” from Uber?

  6. F.O. says


    CAPITALISM (current definition: the ones with the most wealth make the rules.)

    That’s pretty much what “private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit” means: capitalism /requires/ power disparity pretty much by definition.

    It is a system for the accumulation of power and “wealthy people calling the shots” is the only possible outcome.

  7. numerobis says

    I don’t understand paying the shareholders as a remedy for anything. The shareholders got cash equivalent to a reduction in the value of their shares… so on net they got nothing.

    This move doesn’t help victims and it doesn’t even help the “defrauded” shareholders.