Is Congress About to Let Uber and Lyft Off the Hook?

A New Proposal Could Make It Much Harder for Crash Victims to Hold Rideshare Companies Accountable

Imagine you are seriously injured in an Uber or Lyft crash.

You suffer a traumatic brain injury. Your spouse can no longer work because they must care for you. Medical bills pile up. Your life changes forever.

Now imagine Congress passes a law that makes it dramatically harder to hold the rideshare company responsible—even if the driver was working through the company’s app when the crash occurred.

That is exactly what a newly proposed federal amendment offered last week by Representative Vince Fong of California seeks to do.

What Would the Proposed Law Do?

Introduced on May 20, 2026 as an amendment to a 1000+ page proposed bill (H.R. 8870), the amendment would largely shield “network companies”—including rideshare platforms like Uber and Lyft—from legal responsibility for crashes caused by drivers using their apps.

In simple terms, the proposal says that Uber, Lyft, and similar companies generally cannot be held liable merely because they operate the platform connecting passengers with drivers.

Instead, injured victims would have to prove something much more difficult: that the company itself was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

For many victims, that could be a nearly impossible burden.

The proposal would also override state laws that provide broader protections for injured people and would apply regardless of whether the driver is classified as an independent contractor or employee.

Even more concerning, the amendment appears to apply retroactively, potentially affecting cases involving crashes that occurred before the law was enacted if not already filed.

Why Should the Public Care?

Rideshare companies are no longer small technology startups. Uber and Lyft collectively facilitate billions of trips and generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. Yet for years they have aggressively fought legal efforts that could expand their responsibility to drivers, passengers, and members of the public injured in crashes.

This proposal is the latest example.

A Long History of Spending Millions to Limit Liability

The rideshare industry has spent enormous sums of money lobbying lawmakers and funding political campaigns designed to shape the laws governing their business.

One of the clearest examples occurred in California.

When lawmakers sought to impose greater responsibilities on gig-economy companies, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other app-based companies funded Proposition 22—a ballot initiative that allowed them to continue classifying drivers as independent contractors. The companies spent more than $200 million supporting the measure, making it one of the most expensive political campaigns in California history.

That campaign was not simply about worker classification.

The broader objective was reducing the legal and financial exposure that comes with treating drivers as traditional employees and limiting the circumstances under which the companies themselves could be held responsible.

This proposed federal amendment represents another step in the same direction.

Many serious rideshare crashes involve life-altering injuries:

• Traumatic brain injuries
• Spinal cord injuries
• Multiple fractures
• Wrongful death
• Permanent disability

Historically, plaintiffs have often pursued claims not only against the individual driver but also against the rideshare company itself when evidence suggested failures in hiring, screening, supervision, safety policies, or operational practices.

Rideshare companies frequently argue that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. This distinction can become a major issue in litigation because companies have long used it to distance themselves from responsibility for crashes caused by drivers using their platforms.

If this federal amendment becomes law, those arguments could become even stronger.

The result may be that many victims are left pursuing claims only against:

• The individual driver;
• Available insurance policies; or
• Other involved motorists.

Meanwhile, the company operating the platform that arranged the trip may be largely insulated from responsibility.

Accountability Drives Safety

There is a larger question at stake than who pays a judgment.

Accountability often drives safety improvements.

Throughout American history, civil lawsuits have exposed dangerous products, unsafe business practices, inadequate screening procedures, and corporate decisions that placed profits ahead of people.

When companies face meaningful legal consequences, they have strong incentives to improve safety. When those consequences disappear, so do some of those incentives.

Supporters of this amendment argue that rideshare companies should not be held responsible for the independent actions of drivers.  However, shouldn’t the companies that profit from every ride also share in that responsibility when the system they created contributes to serious injuries or deaths?

The Bottom Line

This debate is about more than legal technicalities.

It is about whether billion-dollar corporations should be allowed to profit from transportation services while limiting their exposure when those services result in tragedy.

For years, rideshare companies have invested heavily in lobbying and political campaigns to shape the laws that govern their businesses. The proposed amendment continues that trend by attempting to narrow the circumstances under which these companies can be held responsible for injuries caused through their platforms.

Whether you are a rideshare passenger, driver, cyclist, pedestrian, or another motorist sharing the road, the outcome of this debate could affect your rights after a serious crash.

The question Congress must answer is simple – When a company profits from millions of rides every day, should it also share responsibility when those rides end in disaster?  This amendment puts profits over safety and will only benefit the billion-dollar rideshare business with us, the public, paying the price.

CONTACT Your Representatives And Senators HERE And Tell Them To Vote “NO” to the Fong Amendment to H.R. 8870!

CKF – Rideshare Attorneys

While proudly serving clients in Atlanta and throughout Georgia, our firm handles rideshare cases nationwide.  If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a rideshare crash, contact our firm for a free case review.  For over 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks have fought for victims of negligence and against corporations who put profits over safety.  Contact us today for a free consultation.