Ride-sharing passengers get camera disclosure and opt-out rights

What it does

This bill requires ride-sharing companies (like Uber and Lyft) to tell passengers when a driver has a camera recording inside the vehicle, and to let passengers opt out of rides with cameras. Companies must register all cameras with drivers, notify passengers clearly in their app, and allow easy opt-out without forcing passengers to accept new terms of service. Companies cannot keep or share passenger recordings except to report crimes, for insurance, or to check if drivers followed the rules.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a disclosure and opt-out requirement for ride-sharing passengers facing in-vehicle surveillance. It is fundamentally a consumer protection measure, not a subsidy, carve-out, or deregulation.

What the text implies

• The liability shield in Section 4 protects only compliant companies; non-compliant firms remain fully liable. This creates an incentive for compliance but may also shield companies from passenger lawsuits even when drivers violate the opt-out requirement, provided the company itself followed the law.
• The 180-day implementation window is tight for ride-sharing platforms to build opt-out infrastructure and driver registration systems, potentially creating compliance costs that may be passed to drivers or passengers.
• The bill does not restrict drivers from recording; it only requires disclosure and passenger opt-out. Drivers who record despite opt-out face no direct penalty under this bill—enforcement depends on company enforcement of terms of service.
• Exclusion of nonprofit and government-provided transportation services from the definition of 'transportation network company' means those services face no camera-disclosure requirement, creating a regulatory gap for paratransit and subsidized ride programs.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Passengers gain transparency about surveillance and a meaningful choice to avoid being recorded without consent. The opt-out mechanism is independent of terms-of-service acceptance, preserving passenger autonomy. The liability shield for compliant companies is narrow and conditional—it only protects companies that follow the law, not those that violate it.

Named in the bill

Transportation network companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Drivers, Passengers, Insurance companies (referenced for permitted recording use)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.

• May 7, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• May 7, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,310,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 6 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Marsha Blackburn, the sponsor, reported $133,620 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Uber Technologies, Inc. — $1,230,000 on 1 filing
• Uber Technologies, Inc. — $80,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.