Uber and Lyft Lobby for Ride-Sharing Liability Shield in US Transportation Bill

US lawmakers are considering a significant shift in how rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft are held accountable, as the companies actively lobby for provisions in the upcoming federal transportation spending bill that would shield them from liability in a wide range of incidents. The proposed amendment, part of the larger $580 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal, aims to reclassify firms such as Uber and Lyft as “operators of digital networks” rather than “common carriers.” This change would fundamentally alter their legal responsibility for driver conduct, including car crashes and sexual assaults.

Currently, common carriers like bus companies bear responsibility for their drivers’ actions. The proposed legislation would shift this burden, effectively making insurance firms and individual drivers personally responsible for passenger injuries, unless a court deems the rideshare company engaged in criminal activity or “grossly negligent”—a significantly higher legal threshold. This move also seeks to preempt state-level regulations that currently define rideshare companies as carriers.

Por que importa

Survivor advocates and consumer watchdogs argue that this proposed immunity would leave passengers, particularly those who have experienced sexual assault or abuse by drivers, with diminished recourse. A coalition of nearly 1,900 sexual assault survivors has penned a letter to congressional leaders, including Speaker Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, urging them to remove the immunity language. The letter emphasizes that while legal cases cannot erase the trauma, survivors deserve the right to hold platforms accountable for failing to protect them when passengers are encouraged to trust these services for safe transit.

“No court case can take away the pain and trauma we have endured — that will stay with us forever,” the survivors’ letter states. “But we are worthy of the right to try and hold these rideshare platforms legally accountable for failing to protect us when they told us to trust them to get home safely.” Neither Speaker Johnson nor Minority Leader Jeffries had responded to requests for comment at the time of reporting.

Contexto

The amendment was introduced by House Republican Vincent Fong and has gained traction since late May. It passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with a 35-30 vote on May 22, as part of a broader package that cleared the committee with overwhelming support. However, the proposal faced public protest on June 10 when 128 members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus voiced their opposition in a letter to Speaker Johnson. They warned that the amendment would “disproportionately harm women and girls” and reduce the legal options for passengers affected by crashes and other incidents.

“Rideshare companies, who claim to provide a tool that enhances safety and convenience, must take this seriously,” the Democratic women lawmakers wrote. “Every person deserves to arrive at their destination safely and to know that there is a meaningful path forward for justice when that does not happen.” The bill, including Fong’s amendment, is now slated for consideration by the House Rules Committee, though a vote date has not yet been scheduled. Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito has indicated a desire to complete voting before the current surface transportation act expires on September 30.

Lyft did not provide a comment regarding the bill. An Uber spokesperson, Ryan Thorton, defended the amendment, stating it is necessary to combat “frivolous cases” that inflate ride-sharing costs. “Rideshare companies like Uber are too often sued simply because of their high insurance coverage, even when the company is not alleged to be at fault,” Thorton told Streetsblog. “This is a commonsense reform to help stop these unnecessary and abusive auto accident lawsuits, which drive up rideshare prices for consumers nationwide.”

However, critics argue that the rise in litigation is a direct consequence of an increase in actionable incidents, such as sexual assaults. Between 2017 and 2022, Uber reportedly received a report of sexual assault or misconduct once every eight minutes. Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School, asserted that the proposed liability provision would effectively prevent passengers from holding companies accountable. “Of course they’re at fault,” Doroshow stated. “It’s their platform. They are the ones connecting drivers to passengers. They bear some responsibility for the conduct of those drivers, who take passengers somewhere in an inherently dangerous instrument—a car.”

The legal community has also voiced strong opposition. Andrew Finkelstein, president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, argued that “Affordable transportation and public safety are not mutually exclusive, and Congress should reject any effort to force Americans to choose between the two.”

This lobbying effort represents a continuation of rideshare companies’ strategy to reduce insurance costs and settlement payouts. Uber reportedly spent nearly $1 million, and Lyft contributed approximately $250,000, on lobbying for the transportation bill, including the liability amendment. Uber’s political action committee also contributed to the re-election campaigns of seven members of the House transportation committee. In New York, an Uber-backed PAC spent $8 million supporting Governor Hochul’s efforts to lower auto insurance rates, which resulted in a state budget signed in May that narrows the definition of a serious injury and caps personal injury compensation. Similarly, in California, Uber backed a ballot initiative aiming to cap attorney fees and limit damages in car crash cases, spending $42 million on advertising against personal injury attorneys. This has led to a counter-effort by the Consumer Attorneys of California to advocate for a measure that would hold rideshare companies liable for driver misconduct.

Key facts
| Aspect | Detail |
|—|—|
| Proposed Legislation | Amendment to US federal transportation spending bill (BUILD 250 Act) |
| Companies Involved | Uber, Lyft |
| Proposed Change | Reclassify rideshare companies as “operators of digital networks” instead of “common carriers” |
| Impact | Shift liability for driver conduct (crashes, assaults) from companies to insurers/drivers, unless “gross negligence” is proven |
| Opposition | Nearly 1,900 sexual assault survivors, Democratic Women’s Caucus, trial lawyers |
| Proponents’ Argument | Reduce frivolous lawsuits, lower consumer costs |
| Survivor Advocates’ Argument | Diminished recourse for victims, companies’ platform responsibility |

The proposed legislation could significantly alter the landscape of rideshare regulation in the US, impacting passenger safety and the legal responsibilities of platform companies. This development is closely watched by urban planners, transport officials, and consumer advocacy groups concerned with the evolving nature of mobility services and their integration into city infrastructure. The outcome of this lobbying effort will have direct consequences for how accountability is managed within the gig economy’s transportation sector.

Source: Streetsblog USA – https://usa.streetsblog.org/2026/06/24/uber-and-lyft-want-congress-to-let-them-off-the-hook

Datos clave