Lyft out $224K in settlement over criminal

Ride-sharing service Lyft paid the Colorado Public Utilities Commission $224,375 in civil fines to settle allegations that it allowed a driver with serious felonies to transport passengers for more than a year.

The actual fine was $448,750, but it was cut in half after Lyft admitted the violation and agreed to pay within 10 days last month.

“The company signed the civil penalty admitting liability and paid 50 percent of the amount to settle the case, per our rules,” said Terry Bote, a spokesman with the PUC, which oversees ride-sharing services.

Ride-sharing firms can either perform a fingerprint-based criminal background check or use a private service based on names. Drivers need a clean record for at least seven years for felony DUIs and certain drug offenses.

But lifetime disqualifications exist for sexual crimes, violent crimes, fraud, destruction of property and oth-

er offenses. Companies are subject to fines for each day a driver with a disqualifying offense remains active on a platform.

The driver, identified by the PUC as Danny Gillette, had a robbery and prison escape on his record in other states, according to KCNC-Channel 4, which first reported the story.

Gillette drove with Lyft from June 4, 2016, to last July 5, at which time Lyft became aware of his record and cut ties.

“The safety of the Lyft community is our top priority. As soon as we became aware of this situation, we immediately deactivated this driver from the Lyft platform,” said company spokesman Scott Coriell.

But Lyft did not inform the PUC of its findings, and under state statute, it had no obligation to do so, Bote said.

Just before Thanksgiving, Colorado regulators slapped Uber with an $8.9 million penalty for allowing 57 people with past criminal or motor vehicle offenses to drive for the company.

Lyft had undergone a review of its background checks before Uber did. But investigators didn’t find violations and the company wasn’t fined.

“(Gillette) contacted us after the story broke about the Uber civil penalty a couple of months ago. We followed up and confirmed that he had offenses that disqualified him,” Bote said.

Bote said the PUC considers fingerprint-based background checks better at uncovering serious criminal histories.

But ride-sharing firms have shown a preference for private background checks based on names.