Ensuring Safety for Unaccompanied Teens - The Uber Dilemma
Background: The California Public Utilities Commission's Ruling
Thursday saw the California Public Utilities Commission issue a ruling that demands taxi and ride-hail drivers carrying unaccompanied minors in the state to pass a fingerprint background check. Not only that, but transport companies are also obligated to cover the cost of these background checks. This is a significant shift from Uber's previous stance of fighting against such fingerprint-based requirements.
Uber has a long history of resisting such measures. Seven years ago, it and Lyft blocked a similar effort in California. The company argued that its current name-based background checks and other safeguards were sufficient. However, when it comes to the safety of unaccompanied minors, these arguments seem to fall short.
The Importance of Fingerprinting for Unaccompanied Teens
"When an adult is tasked with providing a service to a minor, they are placed in a position of trust and responsibility over California's most vulnerable citizens - children," reads the decision. Failing to conduct a fingerprint-based background check to identify adults with disqualifying arrests or criminal records could put unaccompanied minors in potentially dangerous situations.
Uber launched Uber for Teens in February 2024, allowing teens aged 13 to 17 to hail a ride without a parent or guardian. But since then, the CPUC has sent a warning letter, strongly recommending that Uber stop the service until the 2016 rulemaking around background checks could be resolved. In March, Uber asked for clarity on the rule, specifically the part regarding businesses primarily involved in transporting minors.
Uber's Stance and Arguments
Uber claims that its own name-based screening system via Checkr, along with safety features like live trip tracking in Uber for Teens, is adequate to keep riders of any age safe. The company also asserts that it only pairs the most experienced and highly rated drivers with teens. However, this has been challenged by accusations of not taking enough steps to protect riders from dangerous situations, including child trafficking.
In July, two families in South Carolina sued Uber, alleging that the company allowed their teen daughters to be taken across state lines to a predator's home, where one of the girls was sexually assaulted. This incident has added fuel to the fire and raised concerns about Uber's safety measures.
The Impact on Uber and HopSkipDrive
The CPUC's ruling is bad news for Uber, which launched Uber for Teens in California. But it is good news for HopSkipDrive, a startup that provides a ride-sharing service for kids and advocated for this ruling. HopSkipDrive refers to its drivers as "CareDrivers" and ensures they have caregiving experience and go through a 15-point certification, including a fingerprint-based background check.
The CPUC's ruling also requires transport companies to share information with the agency on various aspects such as live trip tracking for parents, safety procedures at pickup and drop-off locations, and driver training around transporting unaccompanied minors. Each company is responsible for paying for the checks, a stipulation that Uber has opposed, arguing that it would lead to a price hike for the Uber for Teens service.
HopSkipDrive, on the other hand, pays for the cost of fingerprint checks for its drivers. The Commission has emphasized that if small transportation network companies like HopSkipDrive can cover these costs, Uber should do the same.