Massachusetts officials announced that a 2016 law requiring more comprehensive background checks for rideshare drivers has led to a notable number of failures among applicants for Uber and Lyft.
According to figures released by The Associated Press, more than 62,000 drivers passed the state’s expanded screening process, while about 8,200 did not meet the standards. The most common reasons for disqualification were suspended licenses, drivers who had held a license for less than three years, and multiple driving violations. In addition, the state’s review identified roughly 300 drivers with prior felony convictions and 51 who were registered sex offenders.
Governor Charlie Baker emphasized the administration’s focus on safety. “Public safety is a top priority for this administration and we are pleased to have completed this first round of in-depth background checks a year ahead of schedule,” he said.
The law established a two-step vetting procedure. First, Uber and Lyft must perform their own multi-state criminal, sex offender, and driving history checks. Drivers who pass those checks are then submitted to the state for an independent review. The state’s more detailed evaluation screens for additional concerns and enforces stricter eligibility criteria.
Representatives for Uber argued that the state’s process is overly stringent. They said thousands of prospective drivers in Massachusetts have been excluded from earning income because the screening applies an indefinite look-back period. Uber called for changes to the rules so that people who are suitable for work are not unjustly barred from driving.
State officials and the companies differ on where to draw the line between safety and access to employment. The state’s position is that tighter checks reduce risks to passengers and the public, while rideshare companies warn that overly broad disqualifying factors can limit economic opportunities for many applicants.
Supporters of the stricter screening say it provides an added layer of protection by catching criminal histories and problematic driving records that might not be detected in a single check. Critics argue the standards can be inflexible—for example, penalizing drivers for older offenses or relatively minor infractions—and may not always reflect current risk.
As the two sides continue to debate policy details, the law’s implementation has already changed who can work for app-based transportation services in Massachusetts. The outcome of any rule revisions could affect the number of eligible drivers and how quickly applicants can start working.
Officials have not announced immediate changes to the law, but the discussion over balancing public safety with fair access to jobs is likely to continue as regulators, drivers, and companies weigh potential adjustments to the screening process.