RESOLVED:  Shareholders request that the Board of Directors of Lyft, Inc. (?Lyft?) commission and oversee an independent, third-party human rights assessment of the Lyft?s use of artificial intelligence (?AI?). This assessment should seek to identify any adverse human rights impacts on Lyft?s drivers and rideshare customers and recommend remedies to mitigate them. The assessment, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting legally privileged, confidential, or proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on the Lyft?s website. Supporting Statement:  Given Lyft?s leading role in the development and deployment of AI, investors believe that Lyft should have a due diligence process in place to ensure that its AI systems do not cause or contribute to violations of internationally recognized human rights. The United Nations? Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights urge companies to ?know and show? that they respect human rights by adopting ?a human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.? 1 Lyft has recognized that use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may present risks, including those associated with algorithm development or use, the data sets used, and/or a complex, developing regulatory environment. Additionally, it has acknowledged that ?AI algorithms or automated processing of data may be flawed and datasets may be insufficient or contain inaccurate or biased information, which can create discriminatory outcomes.? 2 The use of AI to dynamically set rideshare rates raises human rights concerns about the potential for algorithmic discrimination against drivers and customers. Ride fares and driver compensation rates set by variable AI algorithms may violate the equal pay for equal work principle recognized by the United Nations? Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 3 It also raises questions about Lyft?s adherence to its own anti-discrimination policy covering riders and drivers. 4 A 2023 Columbia Law Review paper, ?On Algorithmic Wage Discrimination,? stated that ?[a]s a labor management practice, algorithmic wage discrimination allows firms to personalize and differentiate wages for workers in ways unknown to them, paying them to behave in ways that the firm desires, perhaps for as little as the system determines that the workers may be willing to accept.? It also noted: ?the determinants that result in lower pay for women drivers are driven in large part by the structure of wage setting?by algorithmic wage discrimination.? 5 Another study of rideshare algorithms in Chicago found that neighborhoods with larger non-white populations or higher poverty levels are associated with higher fare prices. 6 For these reasons, we urge you to vote FOR this proposal.   1 United Nations, ?Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,? 2011, p. 16,  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf 2 Lyft, Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 32 (February 20, 2024). 3  See  United Nations, ?Universal Declaration of Human Rights,? 1948,  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-   declaration-of-human-rights 4  See  Lyft, ?Anti-Discrimination Policies,?  https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/articles/115012923767 5 Veena Dubal, ?On Algorithmic Wage Discrimination,? November 2023:  https://columbialawreview.org/content/on-algorithmic-wage-discrimination/ 6 Akshat Pandey and Aylin Caliskan, ?Disparate Impact of Artificial Intelligence Bias in Ridehailing Economy's Price Discrimination Algorithms,? July 30, 2021:  https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462561