A New York Times investigation has revealed gaps in Uber's background checks that allow drivers with certain violent felony convictions to join the platform after seven years. While Uber rejects those convicted of severe crimes like murder or sexual assault, it approves others, such as assault or stalking, in many states. This patchwork system raises safety concerns for passengers.
The investigation by the New York Times highlights inconsistencies in Uber's vetting process for drivers across the United States. Uber automatically disqualifies applicants with convictions for murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, or terrorism. However, in 22 states, the company may approve individuals convicted of other serious offenses, including child abuse, assault, and stalking, provided the convictions are more than seven years old.
Background checks in 35 states rely primarily on an applicant's residential history over the past seven years, which could overlook convictions from other areas. This approach contrasts with competitor Lyft, which bars drivers with any prior violent felony convictions, regardless of the time elapsed.
A 2017 audit in Massachusetts led to the banning of over 8,000 previously approved ride-hailing drivers, representing about 11 percent of the total. Internal Uber documents from 2015 show executives considering a shift in safety discussions away from background checks toward cheaper alternatives to reduce incidents. In a 2018 email, Uber's then-head of safety communications called the company's policy "a bare minimum."
The Times identified at least six cases where Uber drivers with prior violent convictions faced passenger accusations of sexual assault or rape, with two resulting in criminal convictions for the drivers. Uber's internal data from 2017 to 2022 indicates reports of sexual assault or misconduct every eight minutes in its US operations. The company notes that 75 percent of these involved less severe issues, like inappropriate comments, and asserts that 99.9 percent of rides occur without incident.
These findings underscore ongoing debates about ride-hailing safety measures and the effectiveness of state-level regulations.
