California Considers Live Scan Fingerprinting for Ride-Service Drivers

Background on Fingerprint Checks for Ride Services

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is considering requiring ride-service drivers, including those for Uber and Lyft, to undergo Live Scan fingerprint background checks. This discussion comes as Uber faces increased scrutiny over its screening process.

Previous Decisions and New Proposals

In January, Commissioner Liane Randolph decided against recommending stricter screenings for ride-service drivers. However, in a new proposal for transportation network companies, she stated that the CPUC would issue a ruling to explore background checks and driver identity verification through fingerprinting.

Randolph did include fingerprint checks in revised rules for services like Shuddle, which transport unaccompanied minors. The CPUC is set to review these proposals on March 17 during the “Phase II” regulatory process for transportation network companies.

Uber Faces Renewed Criticism

Recently, Uber has faced increased scrutiny regarding its background check process. A mass shooting in Michigan, allegedly committed by an Uber driver, has intensified concerns. The driver, Jason Dalton, had no prior criminal record, which Uber claims would have made no difference in preventing the incident.

Uber currently uses Checkr to conduct background checks, reviewing a driver’s criminal history over the past seven years. However, many law enforcement and transportation officials argue that fingerprint checks are the “gold standard” for background screening.

Industry Opinions on Background Checks

Dave Sutton, a spokesman for Who’s Driving You, a public safety campaign, believes Uber’s background checks are inadequate for drivers in trusted positions.

“Not all background checks are the same,” Sutton explained. “Fingerprint-based background checks, conducted by the government, provide a higher level of security.”

Many major U.S. cities require fingerprint background checks for taxi drivers. Taxi services argue that ride-share drivers should be subject to the same regulations.

Legal Challenges and Lawsuits

Uber recently settled two lawsuits for $28 million over accusations of misrepresenting its background check process. Additionally, the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles have sued Uber for misleading statements about its screenings.

An updated complaint in August revealed that Uber’s background checks failed in 25 cases in Los Angeles. Among those allowed to drive were registered sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, and even a convicted murderer.

Limitations of Private Background Checks

Unlike government-conducted fingerprint background checks, private background check companies used by Uber lack access to California’s Department of Justice and federal criminal databases. These companies rely on commercial databases, which do not use biometric identifiers, increasing the risk of errors.

Uber’s Stance on Fingerprint Checks

Uber argues that fingerprint background checks are not 100% accurate and may include individuals who were arrested but never convicted. Uber Senior Adviser David Plouffe stated, “Fingerprinting can be discriminatory, denying opportunities to individuals who were arrested but not convicted.”

Recently, Uber announced a policy change, allowing individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies—later reduced to misdemeanors under California’s Proposition 47—to drive for the company.

Resistance to Fingerprint Checks

Many Uber drivers work part-time, driving fewer than 10 hours per week. Sutton believes Uber resists fingerprint checks because many part-time drivers would not go through the additional screening process.

“The companies know that requiring fingerprinting would discourage part-time drivers from signing up,” Sutton said.

Regulatory Battles in California and Beyond

Current California regulations require ride services to conduct background checks covering the past seven years but do not mandate fingerprinting. Sutton believes Uber’s political influence has slowed stricter screening regulations.

In Austin, Texas, Uber and Lyft have threatened to leave after the city council voted to require fingerprint checks. The companies supported a successful campaign to put the issue to a public vote, while some council members faced recall efforts for backing stricter regulations.

In California, legislative efforts to require fingerprint checks have repeatedly failed. Assemblyman Jim Cooper has introduced a bill for stricter background checks but has not explicitly included fingerprinting, opting for discussions with ride-service companies first.

Public Demand May Drive Change

Sutton believes ride-service companies will only change their policies when enough customers demand stricter background checks.

“What’s happening now is similar to what happened in the taxi industry,” Sutton explained. “After enough incidents, people recognized the need for stricter regulations.”

Conclusion

As scrutiny over ride-service background checks increases, the debate over fingerprinting remains ongoing. While Uber and Lyft argue against stricter measures, regulators and safety advocates continue to push for enhanced security protocols to protect passengers.

By <span class=”author”>Bryan Goebel