A provision added to a $580 billion transportation bill at 2 a.m. could retroactively close the courthouse door on more than 3,000 survivors of rideshare sexual assault. On the latest episode of Civil Action, Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian walk through what the provision actually does and why the legal argument behind it does not hold up.
The provision is Amendment 041, known as the Fong-Gillen amendment. Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA) introduced it during markup of the BUILD America 250 Act, and it cleared the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a 35-30 vote in the early morning hours of May 22.
What the amendment does
The mechanism is a reclassification. Under the amendment, Uber and Lyft are treated as “digital networks” rather than transportation providers.
That change does a lot of work. Reclassifying these companies preempts three separate state law doctrines that survivors currently rely on: vicarious liability, common carrier duties, and non-delegable duty. Each of those doctrines exists because the law has long recognized that when a company puts a passenger in a stranger’s car, it takes on responsibility for what happens next.
The amendment also applies retroactively. That is the part Brian and Shant spend the most time on. Retroactive application would reach claims already pending in federal court, including the more than 3,000 sexual assault cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation, along with claims from survivors harmed under current law who have not yet filed.
Why the rental car analogy fails
Supporters describe the amendment as a modest update, extending the 2005 Graves Amendment from rental cars to rideshare platforms. Brian and Shant explain why that comparison does not survive contact with how these businesses actually operate.
A rental company hands you a set of keys. It does not choose your driver. It does not dispatch anyone, set the route, decide who gets to work on the platform, run background checks, or collect data on every trip.
Uber does all of that. The company controls driver screening, matches driver to passenger, sets the price, tracks the ride, and receives complaints. A statute built for a business that rents out cars does not fit a business that decides who is driving you home.
The record in front of Congress
The timing has drawn attention. The amendment surfaced weeks after a second federal jury returned a verdict against Uber arising from a driver’s sexual assault. Uber reported close to $1 million in lobbying activity on the bill in a single quarter.
One survivor wrote to Congress describing what the company knew. She said Uber’s own internal algorithm scored her ride a .81 on a zero to one sexual assault risk scale. She was never warned. The driver had been reported multiple times before her ride.
More than 275 women state legislators from 42 states and one territory have asked Speaker Johnson to strip the provision. So have 128 members of Congress in a letter led by the Democratic Women’s Caucus.
Where it stands
The amendment survived committee. The full bill advanced 62-2. It has not received a House floor vote.
The clock matters here. Current surface transportation authorities expire September 30, which gives leadership a reason to move the package quickly and gives the provision a chance to travel with it.
Listen to the full episode of Civil Action on the Meidas Touch Network.