Transportation network companies – such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar –
have emerged in virtually all AAMVA jurisdictions over the past few years.
contest that they are not traditional, for-hire transportation companies, such
as taxicab and limousine services; rather, they simply connect passengers with
drivers through a mobile application. In response, jurisdictions have sought
avenues to maintain a balance between ensuring public safety and fostering innovative advances in transportation. Concerns involve liability insurance requirements,
criminal, record and license checks, driver training and testing, and vehicle inspection
standards for these "transportation network companies."
AAMVA has put
together a resource library for members to keep up-to-date on the evolving
relationship between jurisdictions and transportation network companies. The resources
available include legislation, regulations, legal challenges, jurisdictional
news, existing requirements, and state reports.
If you have questions or updates, please send to GovernmentAffairs@AAMVA.org.
The District of Columbia became the first AAMVA jurisdiction to recognize "digital dispatch" ridesharing services in 2013. Colorado soon followed to become the first state to explicitly authorize ridesharing services through legislation on June 5, 2014. Since then, a number
of AAMVA jurisdictions have introduced and adopted legislation studying, authorizing and regulating ridesharing companies and their operations.
Jurisdictional agencies have utilized rulemaking processes
to define and set guidelines for ridesharing companies. Some of these
regulations have been promulgated as a result of enacted legislation and others
through administrative decision-making authority. As AAMVA jurisdictions continue
to employ formal rulemakings concerning ridesharing networks, the regulatory framework for each jurisdiction will be found on this resource page.
Overview of Limousine and Transportation Network Company
Ridesharing companies have experienced legal setbacks in
AAMVA jurisdictions across the country. A number of agencies have sent cease
and desist orders telling companies they do not meet the standards to operate
in their jurisdictions lawfully. Judicial proceedings have also occurred to
prevent ridesharing companies from conducting business. In both scenarios, the
prohibition is intended to ensure that rideshares come into compliance with
existing policies or until the authorizing agency and the enterprise can come
to a settlement to continue operations.
In order to understand the full scope of the changing
landscape of ridesharing networks, AAMVA provides the latest jurisdictional
news on this page for reference.
What You Need to Know about Ridesharing Programs, Kentucky Department of Insurance (June 2014)
Nevada Division of Insurance Informs Consumers about Insurance Issues Surrounding Ride-Sharing Technology Companies, Nevada Department of Insurance (June 18, 2014)9
As jurisdictions confront the issue of growing ridesharing
networks, they may need to determine whether or not ridesharing networks fit
under the existing legal framework of passenger carriers or require their own special
transportation category as some have already created. A majority of
jurisdictions classify taxis and limousines as common carriers and grant
regulatory authority to their utility or public service commissions. However,
each jurisdiction is distinct. The following spreadsheet provides a broad
overview of which state agencies have oversight of ridesharing networks, taxis,
and limousines, the legal citations where one can reference relevant
definitions, and the general requirements needed to be met to operate as a
driver for a respective transportation company within the jurisdiction.
Certain jurisdictions and research organizations have conducted studies to define the issues associated with ridesharing companies. When these reports are released, they will be posted to this resource page.