Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) recently reintroduced his Sami’s Law legislation (H.R. 1082) which passed out of the House last Congress but was not taken up by the Senate. This bill would add additional security and regulatory measures to transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. TNCs are already heavily regulated at the state and local level, and while this legislation is well-intentioned, there are some troubling aspects that should be addressed before this bill moves forward.
Sami’s Law would create the “Safety Actions for Matching and Identifying Ride-Shares Customers Advisory Council” (SAMI’S Law Council), which would be composed of 17 members and tasked with providing safety recommendations to the Department of Transportation. The existing light-touch approach federal regulators have taken toward TNCs has allowed these companies and their gig workers to thrive and has provided consumers with more options on their commute. The open-ended wording of the SAMI’s Law Council’s purview, though, could open the door for potentially problematic regulations and burdensome rules down the road.
As the definition of “gig workers” is being addressed, problematic legislation like AB 5 in California or the PRO Act in Congress demonstrate the types of harmful recommendations that could come from this Council if the members stray from their mission. The undefined scope of the Council could have potentially negative implications for TNCs, well above and beyond their need to provide a safe experience for customers and drivers. Since TNCs are already subject to laws and regulations at the state and local levels, adding a layer of federal regulation (for the very first time) could serve to hinder growth and adversely impact both consumers and drivers. During the COVID-19 pandemic where employment opportunities are restricted by health concerns, any government overreach or heavy-handed approaches that come from this Council could threaten the jobs of drivers and access for consumers.
TNCs have created a new way for millions of Americans to travel and created work for hundreds of thousands of drivers. There is a clear market incentive for TNCs to address any safety risks, and private sector innovation has created multiple levels of security at some of the major companies involved. For example, background checks on drivers, a map displaying the car and license plate, and a photograph of the driver or rider are among the safety measures implemented by TNCs in recent years. Others include a new feature that allows the rider to report the driver for non-emergency issues while in the car and also provides an in-app option to dial 911 that will share the location and vehicle information with an emergency dispatcher in urgent situations.
Sami’s Law would add to these existing layers of security a mandate that TNCs provide the passenger with a way to digitally verify that the driver is one it was matched with prior to beginning the ride. All passengers would automatically be opted-in but could request to opt-out. This could interfere with ongoing private sector efforts to address safety issues that have taken place in recent years. It would also increase barriers for new entrants into the market by adding regulations that all new TNCs, large and small, must adhere to. Furthermore, increased regulations could have negative impacts for drivers and reduce work opportunities during a time when COVID-19 has already placed a major strain on the economy.
The goal of this legislation—ensuring TNCs are safe—is important. NTU has supported a thoughtful approach that would allow for more robust debate on the short-term and long-term implications of this bill. TNCs and Congress have a shared interest in keeping drivers and riders safe, and important steps have already been taken in the private sector. Applying burdensome regulations could derail private sector innovations, though, and lead to increased barriers of entry for new TNCs. While this issue does carry bipartisan support, it is vital these issues are addressed before the bill is voted on to avoid negative repercussions from a well-meaning piece of legislation.