Colorado’s House Bill 25-1291 has been vetoed by Governor Jared Polis on May 23, 2025, following intense pressure from Uber and Lyft. Despite overwhelming legislative support and pleas from survivors,
Why HB25-1291 Matters
Colorado’s House Bill 25-1291, a landmark piece of rideshare safety legislation, has passed both the House and Senate and now awaits Governor Jared Polis’s crucial decision. The controversial bill has triggered serious threats from Uber to exit the Colorado market completely, while survivors of rideshare-related assaults are urging the Governor to prioritize safety over corporate interests.
The bill was vetoed on Friday, May 23, 2025
Who's Behind HB25-1291?
The bill’s primary sponsors include Democratic Representatives Jenny Willford and Meg Froelich, along with Democratic Senators Faith Winter and Jessie Danielson. Representative Willford became the driving force behind this legislation after her traumatic experience of being sexually assaulted by someone posing as a rideshare driver, which led to her filing a lawsuit against Lyft.
Prosecutors this month charged the man accused in Willford’s assault, Mukhammadali Mukadyrov, with one felony count of unlawful sexual contact.
The legislation has created clear battle lines: on one side are lawmakers, victim advocates, and safety proponents; on the other are Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft who argue the requirements would make their Colorado operations unviable. This tension represents a fundamental debate about balancing corporate operations with public safety protections.
What's In the Bill?
The Transportation Network Company Consumer Protection Act was introduced in the Colorado House on February 28, 2025, in direct response to growing concerns over safety in the rideshare industry. The bill was crafted after more than 15,000 reported incidents of violence and assault involving rideshare services, prompting lawmakers to push for urgent reforms.
Critical Safety Provisions After Last-Minute Amendments
Enhanced Background Checks
Rideshare companies (TNCs) would be required to conduct fingerprint-based criminal background checks on all drivers before they begin working.
These checks must be repeated every six months using the same standards as the FBI’s Identity History Summary Checks.
Driver Disqualifications
The bill barred individuals with convictions for violent offenses—including assault, harassment, kidnapping, domestic violence, fraud, and sexual crimes—from driving.
A DUI conviction would disqualify a person from driving for seven years.
Identity Verification Requirements
Companies would be required to verify that the person behind the wheel is the authorized driver, using tools like:
In-vehicle dash cameras
Live self-identification photos or videos
Biometric verification
“Uber and Lyft have severe safety issues and are in crisis, whether they want to admit it or not. It’s why they’ve spent billions of marketing to convince the public they are safe.” — Senator Faith Winter, bill sponsor
Audio and Video Recording
The original bill mandated continuous recording during rides.
In the amended version, this became an optional feature, allowing drivers and passengers to opt in.
This change followed privacy concerns and heavy lobbying from Uber and Lyft.
Work Limits & Rider Protections
Drivers would be limited to 10 consecutive hours of work.
They would also be banned from offering food or beverages to passengers—a measure designed to reduce risks of drugging incidents.
Incident Reporting & Accountability
Rideshare companies must:
Track and report violent incidents
Respond to law enforcement within 2 days
Complete reviews of driver misconduct within 7 days
Civil Proceedings
The bill granted victims the right to sue, rather than being forced into arbitration, in cases of:
Death
Sexual assault
Kidnapping
Personal injury
This marked a major shift away from mandatory arbitration clauses in rideshare agreements.
The Veto: Governor Polis’s Justification
Governor Polis’s Justification
Governor Jared Polis vetoed the bill, stating that it would “jeopardize rideshare services in Colorado to an untenable degree.”
He warned it could cause companies to exit the state, reduce driver availability, or raise prices.
He also cited:
Unclear language around audio/video recording
Infeasible timelines for implementing new regulations
Concerns about conflicts with state privacy laws
This marked Polis’s seventh veto of 2025, and his second involving a tech-regulation measure that year.
Uber and Lyft’s Campaign to Kill the Bill
Uber’s Ultimatum
Uber threatened to stop operating in Colorado if the bill became law.
The company used its app to send mass messages to hundreds of thousands of users, urging them to oppose the measure.
It accused the bill of being “developed behind closed doors” and driven by “billboard attorneys,” not rider interests.
Lyft’s Opposition
Lyft formally requested a veto, arguing that the bill “harms those it seeks to protect” and creates uncertainty for their operations in the state.
Fierce Response from Bill Sponsors
The four Democratic sponsors called Polis’s veto:
“A disappointing move that sides with the profits of powerful tech corporations over the safety and dignity of Colorado sexual assault survivors.”
They accused him of:
Using industry talking points
Failing to engage in compromise earlier
In their statement, they concluded:
“The Governor says he cares about survivors — but actions speak louder than words. When he had the opportunity to act, he chose to side with the convenience and profits of billion-dollar corporations instead of the survivors who shared their horrific experiences over and over again.”
Survivors Demanded Action
In a powerful development, 10 of the 12 identified survivors who were attacked by John Pastor-Mendoza — a man who falsely posed as a rideshare driver and was sentenced to 290 years in prison for kidnapping and assaulting multiple women — sent a letter to Governor Polis urging him to sign the bill.
“I realize that no industry ever wants to be regulated, and every industry that has gone through this pushes back. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it. Safety should never be a question.” — Erika Rinnert, survivor of rideshare assault
Safety Gaps the Bill Addressed
The legislation aimed to address documented safety failures in the rideshare industry. According to Uber’s own safety report, there were 2,717 reports of sexual assault in 2021 and 2022 alone. According to Representative Willford, more than 15,000 Uber and Lyft riders were sexually assaulted between 2017 and 2022.
Uber has been a defendant in numerous lawsuits by riders claiming sexual assault, with a consolidated case in California District Court currently having over 1,400 plaintiffs from 29 states.
What Happens Next?
Polis’s Alternative Approach
Polis directed the Department of Regulatory Agencies to work with bill sponsors to identify policy objectives that could be achieved through executive orders or legislation next year, and instructed the Public Utilities Commission to strengthen existing rules against driver impersonation and enhance background check audits.
However, the sponsors dismissed these efforts as “an empty promise of future regulatory review.”
The Fight Continues
In their post-veto statement, the sponsors declared: “This was a David and Goliath battle — and while David didn’t win today, this fight is far from over. We will be back. And we will keep fighting until every rider and driver is safe.
Historical Context: Empty Threats?
Despite numerous threats to exit markets over regulatory changes, Uber has rarely followed through. In Minneapolis, Austin, California, Seattle, Phoenix, and Chicago, Uber has threatened to pull service due to local regulations, but most disputes were resolved without interrupting service. The only significant exception was a temporary exit from Austin in 2016, which ended when state law overrode local regulations.
The Broader Impact
This legislative battle represents a critical turning point in rideshare regulation nationwide, with Colorado’s outcome potentially setting precedent for other states considering similar measures. The veto sends a clear message that corporate threats can override public safety when powerful companies are willing to use economic leverage against elected officials.
This is the second tech-regulation measure Polis has vetoed this year, following a social media regulation bill, and he is expected to veto another tech bill limiting algorithmic rent-setting software.
The outcome demonstrates that despite overwhelming legislative support, survivor advocacy, and documented safety problems, corporate pressure and threats to leave markets remain effective tools for defeating consumer protection legislation.
Data Transparency Requirements
A cornerstone of the legislation is its focus on information sharing and transparency. The bill requires TNCs to submit specified data to the state Public Utilities Commission, the Attorney General, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee annually beginning February 1, 2026. This mandatory reporting would create unprecedented visibility into incidents, complaints, and safety metrics that have historically remained hidden behind corporate privacy policies.
The legislation would also void contract provisions between TNCs and riders that attempt to waive certain rights, particularly in cases involving serious safety violations. This shift represents a fundamental change in the power balance between rideshare companies and their users, prioritizing consumer protection over corporate liability shields.
(FAQ) Frequently Asked Questions
Will this bill affect taxi services?
No, the provisions specifically apply to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. Traditional taxi services operate under different regulations and would not be subject to these new requirements.
Is audio and video recording mandatory under the amended bill?
No, in the final version of the bill, recording has been changed to an opt in feature rather than a requirement. Both drivers and passengers would have the choice whether to participate in audio or video recording of rides.
Why are rideshare companies fighting HB25-1291 so strongly?
The companies claim the bill creates significant operational challenges, privacy concerns, and potential legal liability. They argue existing safety measures are sufficient and the new regulations would make operating in Colorado financially unviable.
Has Governor Polis indicated which way he's leaning on the rideshare assault prevention legislation?
While the Governor has expressed concerns about privacy issues and the bill’s implementability, he has also emphasized his commitment to rider safety. His office stated he will review the final version before making his decision, noting his desire to keep rideshare companies operating in Colorado where they support nearly 50,000 jobs.
If Uber and Lyft leave Colorado, what alternatives would exist?
Local taxi services would continue to operate, and new transportation services could emerge to fill the gap. Similar threats in other cities have rarely resulted in actual service termination, suggesting companies may be using this as negotiating leverage.
When would these fingerprint background checks and other changes take effect if signed?
Most provisions would take effect on August 6, 2025 (assuming the General Assembly adjourned on May 7, 2025). The implementation timeline would be immediate for verification systems and reporting requirements, while companies would have time to develop policies preventing account sharing and impersonation.
Contact Ramos Law
If you’ve been harmed in a rideshare incident, understanding your legal options is critical. Recent changes to safety regulations could significantly impact your rights and the accountability of transportation network companies.
