Ostensible Agency in Uber and Lyft Cases

Bottom line. Ostensible agency does not require that a formal employment or agency relationship actually exist. It asks whether the principal's conduct led the third party to reasonably believe the actor was acting on the principal's behalf. In the TNC context, the answer is structurally compelled by the platform. On February 5, 2026, an Arizona federal jury in Dean v. Uber returned an eight-figure amount (subject to attorney verification) against Uber on this theory alone.

---

The doctrine

Ostensible agency is recognized by CACI 3709 and Civil Code §§ 2300 and 2317. The doctrine asks one question: did the principal's conduct cause a third party to reasonably believe that the actor was acting on the principal's behalf? An actual agency relationship is not required. A formal employment relationship is not required. The pivot is the reasonable perception of the third party.

---

Why the platform compels the conclusion

The rider opens the TNC's app and:

• Enters a destination.
• Is matched with a driver selected by the TNC's algorithm.
• Sees the driver identified as a TNC driver in the app.
• Pays the TNC's fare through the TNC's payment system.
• Receives a receipt from the TNC.
• Rates the experience through the TNC's feedback mechanism.
• Sees the vehicle displaying TNC branding and trade dress.

The rider never negotiates directly with the driver, chooses the driver, or pays the driver. From the rider's perspective, she is getting into the TNC's car, with a driver the TNC selected, paying the fare the TNC set, on a route the TNC routed, monitored by the TNC's GPS, with a complaint mechanism the TNC controls.

That is not a hypothetical relationship. It is the relationship the TNC has spent billions in marketing to create.

---

Proposition 22 does not defeat ostensible agency

Business and Professions Code § 7451's reclassification operates "with respect to the app-based driver's relationship with a network company," not as to relationships with passengers and the public. Ostensible agency asks about the third party's reasonable perception, not about the bilateral classification between principal and actor. The two questions are entirely different.

Even if § 7451 reached tort claims, only two of the seven theories would even arguably be affected — and ostensible agency is not one of them, because the doctrine looks outward to the rider's perspective, not inward to the contractual label. Full Prop 22 analysis →

---

Terms of Service disclaimers do not defeat ostensible agency

The TNC will produce a Terms of Service paragraph disclaiming any agency relationship. The disclaimer fails for three reasons:

1. The CPUC has expressly prohibited TNCs from using Terms of Service to evade regulatory obligations. Decision 13-09-045 provides: "No Term & Condition in a TNC's Terms of Service or elsewhere, can be inconsistent with this decision."
2. The TNC's exculpatory provisions are unenforceable under Tunkl and Civ. Code § 1668. Under Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, an exculpatory clause is invalid where the entity (a) is publicly regulated, (b) performs a service of great importance, (c) holds itself out to any member of the public, (d) possesses decisive bargaining power, and (e) places the user's person under its control. The TNC satisfies every Tunkl factor.
3. Ostensible agency looks to the rider's perception, not to private contractual arrangements between the principal and the alleged agent. A disclaimer the rider never reads, in a clickwrap agreement she has no power to negotiate, cannot displace the platform-generated perception the TNC engineered to exist.

---

Dean v. Uber: the apparent-agency theory wins an eight-figure amount (subject to attorney verification) in front of a federal jury

On February 5, 2026, an Arizona federal jury in Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04276 (D. Ariz.) (trial-court verdict; subject to post-trial motions), returned an eight-figure (subject to attorney verification) compensatory verdict against Uber in the first federal bellwether trial in MDL No. 3084. The case was tried in Phoenix. The jury rejected the plaintiff's negligence and product defect claims but found Uber liable under an apparent (ostensible) agency theory.

The plaintiff's case on that theory was straightforward and is replicable in every California TNC matter: the rider opened the app, was matched with a driver Uber's algorithm selected, saw Uber branding on the app and on the vehicle, paid Uber's fare through the app, and reasonably believed that the driver was acting on Uber's behalf. The jury credited that account.

The Dean verdict matters in California for three reasons:

1. Apparent agency stands alone. The jury did not need a finding of TNC negligence to hold the company accountable. Ostensible agency, by itself, gets to the verdict.
2. The platform's design creates the perception. The CPUC said as much in Decision 14-04-022; the Dean jury confirmed it.
3. The contractual disclaimer is not dispositive. A clickwrap independent-contractor classification does not displace the rider's reasonable belief that she is dealing with the TNC.

Uber filed a post-trial motion arguing that Arizona law bars apparent-agency liability against a TNC in the rideshare context. The motion remains pending. Regardless of how it is decided, the Dean verdict has already shifted the settlement landscape for the more than 3,000 cases consolidated in MDL 3084, and it provides California practitioners with the most current persuasive authority for the apparent-agency theory. Bellwether deep dive →

---

Practitioner playbook

1. Plead ostensible agency as an independent theory under CACI 3709. Do not subsume it into general respondeat superior.
2. Build the rider-perspective record early. App screenshots, branding screenshots, payment confirmations, trip receipts, rating-system prompts. Use the discovery roadmap categories (5), (10), (11), and (17).
3. Defeat the Terms of Service disclaimer with CPUC Decision 13-09-045 and Tunkl. The CPUC has expressly prohibited TNCs from using ToS to evade regulatory obligations.
4. Cite Dean v. Uber as the most current persuasive authority. The eight-figure amount (subject to attorney verification) verdict on a stand-alone apparent-agency theory is the strongest possible factual proof point.
5. Frame the rider as a member of the regulated public, not a contractual counterparty. The CPUC permit is the relevant legal context.

---

See also

• Hub: The Seven-Theory Framework
• Federal MDL Bellwethers — Dean (Arizona) and Mensing (N.C.)
• PUC § 5354 — Statutory Imputation Without Employment
• Common Carrier Nondelegable Duty (Civ. Code § 2100)
• Proposition 22 Is a Labor Statute, Not a Tort Immunity

---