Detroit rapper Dank Demoss is suing Lyft, alleging a driver refused her service due to her weight, sparking a legal battle over discrimination and accessibility.

A Detroit-based rapper has taken legal action against rideshare giant Lyft, claiming that a driver refused to transport her due to her weight—an incident that has since gone viral and ignited discussions about discrimination in the gig economy.

Dajua Blanding, who performs under the stage name Dank Demoss, filed a civil lawsuit Monday in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that a Lyft driver denied her service on Jan. 18 because of her size.

According to the lawsuit, Blanding had booked a ride from her home in Detroit to a football watch party at her cousin’s house. That night was a significant one for Detroiters, as the Lions faced off against the Washington Commanders in a high-stakes playoff game.

When the Lyft driver arrived in a Mercedes-Benz sedan, Blanding claims he refused to unlock the doors, preventing her from entering the vehicle.

In a tense exchange, which Blanding later shared in a viral Instagram video, she says the driver told her she was “too big” and that the car’s tires could not support her weight.

The driver allegedly insisted that passengers of her size must request a Lyft XL, which typically accommodates up to six riders and comes at a higher price.

Blanding, who has over 173,000 Instagram followers and frequently shares personal and professional moments with her audience, posted footage of the interaction the following day. The video has since been shared over 8,000 times, drawing widespread attention and outrage.

After refusing her service, the driver canceled the ride and drove away, leaving Blanding stranded and unable to attend her cousin’s gathering.

In the lawsuit, she claims the experience caused her emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. She is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, including legal fees and other costs that may emerge as the case progresses.

“Under the law, refusing someone transportation due to their weight is no different than refusing someone transportation based on their race or religion,” said Jon Marko, Blanding’s attorney from the Detroit-based Marko Law firm.

“Discrimination of any kind should never be tolerated in our society.”

Blanding’s legal claim is rooted in the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on weight, race, gender, and other protected categories.

While weight discrimination laws vary across the U.S., Michigan is among the few states with legal protections against such bias.

Lyft, for its part, has not commented on the specific allegations, citing its policy against discussing pending litigation.

However, a company spokesperson reiterated that Lyft “unequivocally condemns all forms of discrimination” and that both its community guidelines and terms of service explicitly prohibit such behavior. The company also emphasized that its drivers are independent contractors.

Blanding has been open about her weight, sharing in a follow-up video that she weighs 500 pounds. She admitted that she sometimes doesn’t recognize the limitations her size may present.

“My mind does not know that I’m this big, so I be feeling like I can do everything,” she said.

Despite the controversy, the rapper has continued to engage with her audience, with many of her followers voicing support and calling for accountability.

Her lawsuit has also sparked discussions about accessibility, weight bias, and the responsibilities of rideshare companies in ensuring equitable service for all passengers.

A court hearing is scheduled for April 20, where both sides will present their arguments in what could become a landmark case in Michigan’s anti-discrimination laws.

In the meantime, Blanding remains vocal about her experience, using her platform to shed light on issues of body discrimination and the everyday challenges faced by plus-sized individuals.

As the case unfolds, it raises larger questions about inclusivity in transportation services and whether more policies need to be in place to prevent similar incidents in the future.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.