Uber is tightening the screws on who gets to drive in San Francisco, announcing today that it plans to bar people with violent-felony convictions, sexual-offense convictions, and child or elder-abuse charges from the platform, no matter how long ago those crimes happened. The company says it is rolling out the most significant change to its vetting rules in years, a shift that follows months of reporting and high-profile litigation over whether its current system lets risky drivers slip through. For San Francisco riders and regulators, who have been pressing for tougher screening for years, this is not just a corporate policy tweak. It could be a shake-up in who gets the keys to the app.
According to The New York Times, Uber officials are weighing formal rules that would bar drivers convicted of violent felonies, sexual offenses, and child or elder abuse regardless of when the convictions occurred, and are also considering tighter standards for harassment, restraining-order violations, and weapons charges. An Uber spokesman told the paper that "Safety isn’t static," and the company again pointed out that 99.9 percent of rides occur without an incident of any kind.
Uber’s own public safety materials say the platform already permanently blocks drivers convicted of murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and terrorism. For most other felonies, the company generally relies on a seven-year lookback, with annual reruns of background checks and continuous monitoring services that flag new criminal charges, according to its background-checks overview. The fine print notes that the exact screening window can vary based on state law and on what local courts make available to the third-party vendors that pull records.
Why reporting and trials mattered
This policy rethink did not come out of nowhere. A December investigation by The New York Times found that in many states, Uber had approved drivers with violent felony convictions once those convictions were more than seven years old. Then, in early February, a federal bellwether trial in Phoenix ended with an $8.5 million verdict against Uber in a case involving sexual-assault claims against a driver, a result that plaintiffs’ lawyers say could influence thousands of similar lawsuits, Reuters reported.
What it could mean here
California is already a pressure cooker on rideshare safety, with lawmakers and voters debating fingerprint-based checks and new disclosure requirements for platforms. A proposed ballot initiative would classify rideshare companies as common carriers and require annual Department of Justice fingerprint checks along with monthly public tallies of sexual-misconduct incidents, according to a report by Hoodline. In securities filings, Uber has warned that stricter screening rules or mandated changes to its background-check process could shrink the available driver pool and slow onboarding, which could in turn affect service levels and costs, according to the company’s filing with the SEC.
Legal implications
Lawyers watching the Phoenix case say the new policy could cut both ways for Uber. On one hand, tougher rules may gradually reduce the company’s legal exposure. On the other, the shift creates another timeline marker that plaintiffs can point to when arguing that Uber took too long to fix known safety gaps. The company has said it plans to appeal the Phoenix verdict, according to Reuters.
For now, many details are still unresolved. Implementation will roll out differently from state to state, limited by what records background-check vendors are legally allowed and technically able to obtain. In the meantime, San Francisco officials, rider-safety advocates, and driver groups will be watching closely to see how Uber’s big promises on paper translate into the everyday screenings that determine who gets to pick up a ride.
