b'riders and related litigation. The court held that the adequacy of the disclosures is not so obvious that thePlaintiff also faulted defendants for omitting Court may resolve this dispute at the motion to dismiss stage[,] and thus, plaintiffs allegation that the omissionanticipated record losses for the first quarter of any mention of potential liability from sexual assaultsof 2019 from the Registration Statement, but perpetuated by drivers against riders made Lyfts statements regarding safety materially misleading isthe court held that defendants had no duty sufficient. Though defendants argued that there couldto disclose the magnitude of such losses, not be a material omission because the market knew of sexual assault complaints and ongoing litigation againstemphasizing courts reluctance to impose the company during the IPO, the court disagreed,liability on companies based on failures rejecting defendants reliance on exemplary news reports and holding that defendants did not establishto disclose financial data for in-progress as a matter of law that such information was in thefiscal quarters.public domain.Second, the court further held that plaintiff adequately alleged that hypothetical risks included in thewere misleading given that the Registration Statement Registration Statement about quality-control problemsdisclosed the source of its data and the assumptions and defects with shared bikes were materiallyunderlying the figures. Furthermore, the Registration misleading because, by the time of the IPO, theseStatement stated that Lyft had not independently risks were actually present realities, as Lyftsverified those figures, and acknowledged that other bikeshare program was already experiencing severethird-party estimates may differ from Lyfts. Plaintiff and pervasive safety issues. Indeed, plaintiff allegedalso faulted defendants for omitting anticipated record that when Lyft acquired Motivate before the IPO,losses for the first quarter of 2019 from the Registration Lyft obtained full access to an extensive log of userStatement, but the court held that defendants had crashes and complaints, and also that Lyfts own datano duty to disclose the magnitude of such losses, reflected that 21% of one citys bike fleet had simplyemphasizing courts reluctance to impose liability on disappeared in just a two-week period. companies based on failures to disclose financial data While preserving some of plaintiffs claims, the courtfor in-progress fiscal quarters. Finally, the court granted granted defendants motion, with leave to amend, asdefendants motion as to statements in the Registration to claims concerning Lyfts market share, first quarterStatement about driver benefits that purportedly losses, and driver benefits, among other things.conflicted with Lyfts unstated strategy of treating The court reasoned that plaintiff had not adequatelydrivers as independent contractors, because such alleged that defendants market share statementsalleged omissions lacked connection to statements 38'