7 ms·
We can argue this one all day :). I would argue Lyft is merely providing the service of matching me with the driver (who is a 3rd party, specifically not an em
by jcdavis 11y ago
We can argue this one all day :).
I would argue Lyft is merely providing the service of matching me with the driver (who is a 3rd party, specifically not an employee), for which it takes a fixed cut. The driver is the primary provider of the service, and as such Lyft is merely an agent, and should follow net revenue reporting.
Really Lyft (and Uber) fall on both sides of EITF 99-19, but I suspect when Uber IPOs you wont find "gross revenue" anywhere in their S-1
- rahimnathwani 11y ago"We can argue this one all day :)." Actually, we don't need to :) It's clear as day in Lyft's T&Cs. You are correct. Lyft is an agent, not a principal to the transaction.
- jcdavis 11y agoIt makes sense - As soon as they claim they are a principal the lawsuits from their drivers about employement status become more legitimate.