Seeking to protect Uber and Lyft customers, a group of Democratic lawmakers unveiled a bill Friday that would boost steps companies must take to perform background checks on drivers and ensure unauthorized persons are not picking up rides in place of those drivers.
The bill, sponsored by Reps. Jenny Willford of Northglenn and Meg Froelich of Greenwood Village, also would ensure transportation-network-company drivers work no more than 10-hour shifts and would require each ride to be continuously recorded via video and audio. It also would allow people injured by violations of the bill to file civil lawsuits against a TNC or a driver, and it would make violations of the proposed law deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, which allows for much greater financial awards.
Willford sued Lyft in January after she said she was sexually assaulted by a driver who had switched places with the authorized driver, with whom he had shared his account. The yet-to-be-introduced bill is an attempt to stop others from being victimized like she was and to hold accountable TNCs that do not implement more vigorous safety procedures, she said during a morning news conference at the Capitol.
“Let’s be clear: Rideshare companies have known of these problems for years. Their refusal to act has cost lives and has changed lives forever,” Willford said. “If these billion-dollar companies won’t act, Colorado will. We are done with them putting profits over people.”
Not the first bill creating rules for TNCs
The effort comes one year after legislators passed precedent-setting regulations on both TNCs that transport people via ridesharing apps and on delivery network companies that deliver food and other products from restaurants and stores. Those laws require on-bill breakdowns of how much money goes to drivers versus parent companies, give drivers more time without recrimination to decide whether to take a ride and require companies set up appeals processes for drivers deactivated from platforms.
Representatives from both Uber and Lyft, the two largest TNCs, responded to Friday’s announcement by emphasizing the safety measures they have in place, with both noting they undertake initial and annual background checks on drivers. But Uber officials added that the specific requirements in the proposed bill are so onerous that the company would have to reconsider whether it would continue doing business in the state if it were to pass.
“This unprecedented legislative proposal would jeopardize Uber’s operations in Colorado, leading to a potential reduction of service for hundreds of thousands of Coloradans and fewer work opportunities for thousands of drivers,” Uber said in a statement. “We are ready to work with the sponsors of this bill to find common ground and pass legislation that will help keep riders safe and keep drivers on the road.”
How the bill and background checks would work
The bill would require that TNCs do criminal history checks on drivers before they begin to work with them and then at least once every six months afterward — and that the checks be fingerprint-based rather than done through a privately administered record check.
To ban account-sharing leading to unauthorized drivers, the bill would require TNCs verify driver identity before each ride through an in-vehicle dash camera, a live self-identification photo or video, a biometric identification by fingerprint or optical scan or another method. And it would mandate TNCs ensure every prearranged ride is continuously audio- and video-recorded from pickup to drop-off unless a rider or driver opts out.
If a rider files a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission, the TNC must provide them all data, video and photographs relating to that ride, and it must respond to requests for information from law enforcement or prosecuting attorneys within 24 hours, the bill states. Violations of the law are subject to private rights of action or to civil suits from the Colorado Attorney General’s office, as are attempts to alter the rating that riders assign drivers on a TNC’s digital network.
Finally, TNCs would be required to submit annual data to the state on the number of reported safety incidents involving assaults, stalking, harassment, thefts, homicides and accidents and must develop policies to prevent imposter accounts and sexual assault. And the bill would prohibit TNC drivers from driving or offering to drive for more than 10 consecutive hours.
No “wiping their hands clean”
Colorado state Rep. Lorena Garcia offers her support for a bill regulating rideshare companies on Friday.
Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County, said at the press conference that it “sucks” to be introducing such a bill but that backers feel they no longer have options after so many people reached out to Willford to tell her of experiences similar to that which she had. The state, she said, must step in and protect people who are trying to do the right thing and stay off the road after having had one drink too many or after deciding they want to leave their car at home and reduce congestion.
“We trust that the service will be provided to us professionally. We trust that the service will not put us in harm’s way,” Garcia said. “What this policy would do is prohibit a company from wiping their hands clean when they turn away from the problem.”
But, as with many of the regulatory bills introduced at the Capitol, it’s not the underlying intent of the policy that is frustrating the companies that could come under increased rules so much as the specifics of those rules.
The problem with fingerprint-based background checks
Both Uber and Lyft, for example, require initial and ongoing background checks on an annual basis but do not use fingerprint-basd checks, which rely on the FBI’s criminal-justice information system. Uber went so far as to suspend operations in Austin, Texas and in Broward County, Florida, when those two local governments required fingerprint-based background checks, though it’s since worked out issues in both places.
Both companies have noted that the FBI database includes individuals who were arrested but not convicted of crimes and that these individuals are disproportionately Black or Latino, which curtails employment opportunities for communities of color. Meanwhile, both companies have said, the database does not include individuals who were convicted after being arrested in ways that don’t require booking and fingerprinting, such as indictments, leaving gaps in which criminals can be flagged.
Both companies instead use background checks done by third parties that include methods such as a social-security-number traces, a nationwide criminal search and searches of federal and local court records plus the federal sex-offender registry.
Other issues with the bill
Also, it’s unclear if provisions of the law will clash with the legal policies that TNCs have in place. Lyft, for example, requires a subpoena or other valid legal process before disclosing personal information to law enforcement, and it’s unclear whether the directive in the bill to respond to law-enforcement requests within 24 hours requires a subpoena.
“Safety is fundamental to Lyft, which is why we’ve worked to design policies and features that help protect both drivers and riders,” the company said in a statement, noting its partnership with ADT to aid in emergencies and its around-the-clock safety-response team. “We are always striving to improve safety and look forward to engaging lawmakers further on this important issue.”
Finally, business leaders are continually weary of bills that introduce new private rights of action that create opportunities for pricey litigation, particularly deceptive-trade-practice suits that allow for increased damages and attorneys’ fees. That battle is playing out in several legislative bills this year, including efforts to boost awards in disability-based anti-discrimination suits and a bill to make it easier to claim deceptive trade practices.