A bill moving forward in the New York City Council that would limit how e-hail apps can boot drivers from their platforms has sparked a misinformation campaign by Lyft, local lawmakers and activists said.

The proposed legislation, which is sponsored by Councilmember Shekar Krishnan of Queens, aims to require due process for drivers accused of wrongdoing before they’re kicked off apps like Uber and Lyft. It would require the companies to give drivers two weeks’ notice before deactivating their accounts, unless they’re accused of “egregious misconduct.”

Under current regulations, the tech companies can immediately revoke drivers’ access to the apps, even for a minor infraction like looking at their phone too often — leaving them without explanation for their termination until they appeal the decision.

Drivers have for years accused Uber and Lyft of temporarily kicking them off the platforms as a way to skirt the city’s minimum wage requirements. Driver advocates said the deactivations are another way the apps avoid spending money on their drivers.

But in an email to New York City users this week, Lyft claimed the legislation would force it to keep drivers on the road who are accused of “sexual harassment, reckless driving or other offenses.” The company also sent local drivers an email that said the proposal “could put our community at risk, and damage the trust that helps sustain a healthy marketplace for your earnings.”

Krishnan said the bill would still allow Lyft to boot dangerous drivers or people accused of crimes on the job.

“Let’s be very clear about what Lyft is doing. Lyft is a billion-dollar company putting money into spreading false information about this legislation and fearmongering,” said Krishnan. “They have a company-controlled process that deactivates drivers, but that process only kicks in after they've been deactivated. So the system is fundamentally unfair and it makes Lyft and Uber the prosecutor, judge and jury.”

A spokesperson for Lyft said the bill's language is too vague to allow the company to swiftly deactivate drivers accused of wrongdoing.

"Already, Lyft is taking steps to improve the deactivations and appeals processes, including a more transparent and streamlined way to appeal. We also have a partnership with the Independent Drivers Guild to help guide member-drivers through the deactivations appeals process and offer the opportunity for third party arbitration,” company spokesperson CJ Macklin said in a statement. “Instead of forcing such a flawed, vague proposal, we should work together on a solution that builds on what’s already working and ensures the safety of riders, drivers and the public alike.”

Macklin pointed to a letter the National Federation of the Blind sent the City Council last month urging lawmakers to amend the bill, including adding a more specific definition of “egregious misconduct” by drivers.

The bill would require the companies provide due process for drivers before they’re barred from the apps, which would include a panel of arbitrators made up of both driver-side and company-side representatives.

It’s Lyft's latest attempt to fight regulations proposed by New York City elected officials on the company's business. Lyft sued the city in 2019 over a minimum wage law for app-based drivers passed by the Council the year before.

A New York state judge dismissed the lawsuit, solidifying the pay requirements. Following the ruling, Uber and Lyft were accused of a “lockout” pattern where they temporarily booted drivers from their apps without notice to skirt fully paying drivers. The city Taxi and Limousine Commission in June passed rules addressing that problem, which now requires the apps to give 72 hours’ notice before temporarily locking a driver out of their account.

While Lyft argues the proposed rules are too vague for determining how a driver would be deactivated from its platform, advocates say their public opposition reflects a tactic by the company to limit drivers’ power and autonomy.

New York Taxi Workers Alliance Executive Director Bhairavi Desai said Lyft is attempting to pit drivers against one another.

“Lyft’s opposition is because they don’t want to have to spend a dime on drivers,” Desai said. “Whether it’s on drivers’ income, their wellbeing, their safety, or their right to due process.”