Victory for Lyft, Uber on vetting

Plan means yearly checks but avoids fingerprinting

State regulators declined to require biometric background checks, such as fingerprints, for ride-hail drivers, but plan to require annual checks, codifying something that Lyft and Wingz already do but that Uber, the biggest player in the market, does not.

A proposal from the California Public Utilities Commission, which oversees ride-hailing companies, would require the firms to ensure that vendors conducting the commercial background checks are accredited by an industry association, and provide proof of that to the regulator, as well as proof of annual screenings.

The utilities commission, however, said it is declining to require biometric screening “after much consideration and public comment ... finding that doing so would not add a greater level of safety.”

Taxi drivers undergo fingerprint background checks, and their industry, as well as critics of Uber and Lyft, have long lobbied for ride-hail drivers to have the same requirement. California lawmakers have attempted unsuccessfully several times to pass legislation requiring biometric checks for Uber and Lyft drivers.

Uber and Lyft have fiercely resisted any such attempts, calling the process onerous and discriminatory. Fingerprint checks go through an FBI database that tracks criminal activity over an entire lifetime. The current Lyft and Uber checks go back seven years and involve courthouse searches in every jurisdiction where a driver has lived as well as of the National Sex Offender website. A California law, AB1289, which took effect this year, requires a lifetime search for all violent felonies and other significant offenses.

Both companies went so far as to cease operations in Austin, Texas, when it required fingerprint checks for drivers last year. Texas has since axed that requirement, and Uber and Lyft resumed service in Austin in May.

The utilities commission’s proposal would maintain requirements that ban registered sex offenders and people convicted of violent crimes such as misdemeanor assault or battery, domestic violence and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The companies welcomed the proposal. It maintains the status quo for Lyft and Wingz, which already do annual screenings. For Uber, the yearly requirement is new, but that company did not protest it. Uber said it rescreened all drivers early this year when AB1289 took effect.

“We appreciate the CPUC’s thoughtful deliberation on this issue and the supportive comments from a wide range of experts who helped to inform the decision,” said Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Harrison. “Today’s proposal is a recognition of Lyft’s strong background check process, which prioritizes public safety without limiting innovation or economic opportunity.”

Uber said in a statement: “We appreciate the Commission’s thoughtful review of this important issue. We are encouraged by their proposed decision which promotes both public safety and economic opportunity.”

Wingz, which provides airport rides in drivers’ personal cars, was likewise upbeat. “It appears this is the process we already have in place,” said CEO Geoff Mathieux.

The district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles sued Uber two years ago for claiming that its background checks were industry-leading. Uber settled for $10 million and stopped making the claim. Lyft settled similar allegations before charges were brought and agreed to pay $250,000 in civil fines.

The California Public Utilities Commission may vote on the proposal at its Nov. 9 meeting. Comments can be sent to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.