Uber, Lyft fingerprinting gets thumbs down from regulators

In a win for Uber and Lyft, state regulators lateWednesday said they don’t intend to force the ride-hailing companies to fingerprint their drivers — rejecting the idea that the added screening would make passengers safer.

After a yearlong review, sparked by demands from the taxi industry and public safety advocates to tighten background screenings of Uber and Lyft drivers, the California Public Utilities Commission deter- mined it’s not necessary to collect ride-hailing drivers’ fingerprints. The 35-page proposed decision by the commission, which regulates ride- hailing companies in the state, won’t become final until it’s voted on and approved by the entire panel — possibly as early as Nov. 9.

“Although we recognize the public’s familiarity with fingerprinting, we do not see that a demonstratively greater level of safety would be added over and above the current backgroundcheck protocols,” Commissioner Liane Randolph wrote.

Ride-hailing companies in California already have to conduct background checks on drivers using court records and the national sex offender registry, andmust exclude potential drivers who have been convicted in the past seven years of crimes including assault, domestic violence or driving under the influence. Under a law passed last year, California drivers cannot drive for the platforms if they have ever been convicted of a violent felony, terrorism-related offense or sex offense.

California regulators on Wednesday said they would also require that the third-party agencies the ride-hailing companies use to conduct background checks be nationally accredited. And all drivers on ride-hailing platforms must undergo additional background checks once a year, the commissionwrote in its proposed rule.

Lyft cheered the Wednesday decision. The company has spent years fighting against mandatory fingerprint checks, and both Lyft and Uber refused to operate in Austin, Texas for more than a year after the city voted to require drivers to submit to fingerprint background

checks. The companies returned inMaywhen that requirement was pulled back.

“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,” a Lyft spokesman wrote in an emailed statement. “Today’s proposal is a recognition of Lyft’s strong background check process which prioritizes public safety without limiting innovation or economic opportunity.”

Uber had a similar response.

“We appreciate the Commission’s thoughtful review of this important issue,” a spokesman wrote. “We are encouraged by their proposed decision which promotes both public safety and economic opportunity.”

But not everyone was pleased.

“Disappointed the CPUC is neglecting to protect riders by requiring the safest form of driver screening for Uber and Lyft,” Dave Sutton, of the taxi indus- try- sponsored campaign Who’s Driving You? wrote in an email. “California lawmakers and consumers should remain aware there’s a time-tested and superior form of background check: fingerprinting.”

Efforts to require fingerprint background checks for Lyft and Uber drivers largely have been spearheaded by the taxi industry. Taxi drivers generally are required to give their fingerprints before they can drive, and had protested state officials giving ride-hailing app companies what they perceived to be an unfair advantage by letting them forgo the checks.

But demands for the fingerprint checks on Uber and Lyft drivers mounted in recent months, particularly in the wake of reports of ride-hailing drivers sexually assaulting or harassing passengers. For example, a lawsuit filed last month accuses an Uber driver of making inappropriate comments to his 16-year- old passenger.

Uber has faced other safety complaints. Last year the company settled a lawsuit in which the district attorneys in San Fran- cisco and Los Angeles had accused Uber ofmisleading the public about its safety standards. Lyft settled a similar lawsuit in 2014. Another class-action lawsuit took issue with Uber collecting a “safe rides fee” from customers.

But commissioners on Wednesday said fingerprint checks aren’t the answer.

For one thing, people who submit fingerprints via the popular Live Scan service aren’t required to show photo ID, the commission wrote. And criminal records, even those attached to a fingerprint, are only as accurate and up-todate as the information provided by local courts and law enforcement agencies. When there are errors in those records, requiring a fingerprint can actually exacerbate those resulting delays, the commission wrote.

For the general public, though, it appears the answer wasn’t so clear- cut. The commission has received 1,817 comments on the issue since June 2016, with 48 percent of respondents in favor of fingerprint background checks, and 49 percent opposed. About 2 percent said “it depends.”