Seven years ago, Uber and Lyft opposed a proposal in California that would require ride-hailing app drivers to undergo fingerprinting. However, the launch of Uber for Teens earlier this year inadvertently brought the issue back into focus.
A broader discussion is now taking place as startups, Uber, and California regulators determine when a transportation service should mandate fingerprinting for its drivers.
Uber for Teens was introduced in February in California, allowing teenagers aged 13 to 17 to book rides under a parent’s account. Public records reveal that Uber sought clarification from the California Public Utilities Commission regarding a 2016 ruling that required transportation network companies primarily transporting minors to conduct stringent background checks, including fingerprinting.
This inquiry triggered a period of public comments, inviting advocacy from potential competitors such as HopSkipDrive, a startup offering a rideshare service for children. The timing has been fortuitous for HopSkipDrive, as they now have an unexpected opportunity to hold Uber to the same standards as other companies in the industry.
HopSkipDrive has argued that Uber should adhere to the 2016 ruling’s requirements, even if they do not primarily transport minors. They believe that every child’s safety should be of utmost importance, regardless of the number of minor passengers.
The focal point of the debate revolves around whether Uber should participate in the Department of Justice’s Trustline program, which uses fingerprinting to screen caregivers for criminal backgrounds and reports of child abuse and neglect.
Despite Uber’s belief that their screening system and safety features are sufficient to ensure rider safety, the debate over fingerprinting continues. Uber has historically resisted fingerprinting requirements for its drivers in various cities, arguing that the process is inconvenient and disproportionately impacts minority drivers.
While Uber claims that their comprehensive screening process and safety features make fingerprinting unnecessary, the debate on the subject remains ongoing. The CPUC has not yet provided a timeline for clarifying its ruling on fingerprinting requirements for transportation services.
