A new federal lawsuit claims that city regulations governing rideshare drivers result in immediate and indefinite loss of work based on unverified allegations, leaving affected individuals without any way to appeal or defend themselves. The complaint was filed by Abdalla Maalim on March 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago.
According to court documents, Maalim drove for Uber and Lyft until December 24, 2024, when Uber deactivated his account over what he describes as a vague allegation of unsafe driving. Under Chicago’s Transportation Network Providers (TNP) Rules—specifically Rules 1.10 and 5.02—this deactivation triggered an automatic and indefinite suspension of his city-issued chauffeur license. As a result, Maalim was also deactivated from Lyft on the same day. The complaint states that “Uber’s unilateral deactivation had the effect of blacklisting him—leaving him unable to perform rideshare work for all similar companies in the City.”
The lawsuit challenges these TNP Rules as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing they deprive drivers like Maalim—and potentially thousands more—of their property interest in their licenses without any procedural safeguards or opportunity for appeal. The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of all current and former rideshare drivers whose licenses were suspended by the City due to deactivation from a TNP platform pursuant to these rules.
Under TNP Rule 1.10, companies such as Uber or Lyft must notify the City whenever they permanently deactivate a driver for conduct described as a “public safety concern.” Rule 5.02 then requires immediate suspension of that driver’s city-issued chauffeur license. According to Maalim’s filing, this process results in effective blacklisting across all platforms: “deactivation from one TNP platform results in the driver being unable to perform rideshare work in the City of Chicago.”
The complaint cites data obtained by DePaul University’s Center for Journalism Integrity & Excellence indicating that only 3.7% of drivers had their licenses reinstated after deactivation over a five-year period; more than 20,000 drivers lost their licenses between 2019 and 2024 due to these policies.
Maalim recounts how he received notice from Uber about his deactivation for “unsafe driving” on December 24, 2024, followed by an immediate Lyft deactivation citing compliance with city rules rather than any independent investigation: “Lyft does not have information about the underlying incident… Only the TNP that initially deactivated your account is able to resolve your account deactivation,” read an email from Lyft cited in court documents.
Attempts by Maalim to seek recourse through Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) were unsuccessful. A BACP representative confirmed via email that “the City of Chicago and BACP is unable to help you,” instructing him instead to resolve matters directly with Uber or Lyft.
The lawsuit argues that this regulatory framework violates procedural due process because it strips drivers’ ability to earn a living based solely on allegations reported by private companies without notice or hearing: “The City provides no procedural safeguards for drivers who have had their TNP chauffeur licenses suspended due to deactivation from a TNP platform,” according to court filings.
Plaintiff seeks several forms of relief: certification as a class action; declaratory judgment declaring TNP Rules 1.10 and 5.02 unconstitutional both facially and as applied; permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement without adequate procedural protections; compensatory damages for lost income and emotional distress; costs; attorneys’ fees; and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys listed for Maalim include Bradley Manewith (#06280535), Shannon Liss-Riordan (pro hac vice forthcoming), and Trevor Byrne (pro hac vice forthcoming) from Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., with offices in Northbrook, Illinois and Boston, Massachusetts. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-03049.
Source: 126cv03049_Abdalla_Maalim_v_City_of_Chicago_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
