Debate Over Fingerprinting Drivers Reignites with the Introduction of Teen-Focused Ride-Sharing Service

Seven years previously, California’s proposal for mandatory fingerprinting for ride-hailing app drivers was met with resistance from Uber and Lyft. This year, however, the introduction of Uber for Teens has inadvertently brought the debate back to the fore.

A wider argument now unfolds, involving startups, Uber, and California’s regulatory authorities, over the necessity of fingerprinting for drivers within the transport service sector. 

February saw the launch of Uber for Teens in California, a service allowing 13 to 17-year-olds to book rides through a parent’s account. Uber approached the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), seeking insight into a 2016 decree that mandated stringent driver background checks, including fingerprinting, for services predominantly transporting minors.

Uber questioned the exact implication of “primarily” and inquired whether an update to the interpretation of the term was expected.

This inquiry triggered a period for public commentary, during which advocacy groups, including HopSkipDrive—a kid-focused rideshare service—voiced support for fingerprinting.

For HopSkipDrive, the discussion arrives at an opportune moment. Although its primary role is to assist school districts in student transportation, it also competes directly with Uber for Teens by allowing parents to schedule rides for their children.

Through its participation in the commentary process, HopSkipDrive leverages the chance to advocate for Uber to be held to the same regulatory standards as itself and taxi services. 

HopSkipDrive has contested Uber’s exemption from the stringent requirements set forth in the 2016 ruling, emphasizing the need for high safety standards even for services not primarily catering to minors, according to statements made to TechCrunch by Trish Donahue, the company’s senior VP of legal and policy.

The heart of the discourse is whether Uber should be compelled to join Trustline, a comprehensive caregiver screening program run by the California Department of Social Services, which includes fingerprint-based criminal and Child Abuse Central Index checks.

Although teen journeys currently represent a minor fraction of Uber’s service, the company insists its existing safety mechanisms and in-app features for Uber for Teens are sufficient for ensuring the welfare of all passengers.

Uber explained its proactive engagement with the CPUC before introducing teen accounts in California, underscoring a commitment to providing safe and convenient transportation options for families and their teenagers.

Uber’s stance on fingerprinting reflects a broader resistance, backed by arguments against the reliability of fingerprint databases and potential biases against minority groups, despite the requirement in numerous cities for taxi drivers to undergo such background checks.

Uber maintains that its comprehensive background checks, alongside continuous monitoring, render the need for fingerprinting moot, with the company employing Checkr for thorough screenings across all jurisdictions relevant to a driver’s history.

The company also highlights specific safety features for teen passengers, including rides solely by top-rated drivers, live tracking, and obligatory PIN codes established by parents for ride commencement, aiming to ensure a secure and transparent service.

Uber’s creation of teen accounts involved extensive preparation and consultation with child safety organizations, reflecting its emphasis on protective measures.

The CPUC has yet to finalize its stance but continues to gather opinions, with a deadline for further comments set for July 12.