Uber, the world’s largest ride-hailing company, is once again under the spotlight after a pair of investigative reports revealed alarming gaps in its driver screening process, with major implications for rider safety—especially for women. According to The New York Times and corroborated by Mashable, Uber has routinely approved drivers with violent felony convictions, including assault, child abuse, and stalking, provided those convictions are more than seven years old. The company maintains a permanent ban only for individuals convicted of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, or terrorism, but other violent offenses are not automatically disqualifying after that seven-year threshold.
This policy has real-world consequences. In 22 states, Uber’s background checks have allowed drivers with serious violent felony records to slip through, simply because the offenses occurred more than seven years ago. The issue is compounded by a systemic blind spot: in 35 states, background checks only examine criminal records from the state where the driver currently lives. This means that convictions from other states can go undetected, allowing individuals with dangerous histories to drive unsuspecting passengers.
Uber defends its seven-year lookback policy as “striking the right balance” between protecting rider safety and giving people with criminal records a chance to rebuild their lives. The company echoes arguments made by advocates for fair-chance employment and points to state laws that limit how far back consumer reporting agencies can search. Yet, safety experts and survivor advocates argue that the severity of an offense should matter more than its age, and that Uber’s reliance on commercial background check vendors—rather than more comprehensive fingerprint-based checks—leaves significant gaps. As one safety expert told The New York Times, “People-based checks are only as potent as their source databases.”
Uber has long resisted implementing fingerprint-based checks, contending that they are slower, more expensive, and potentially less accurate due to errors in federal rap sheets. Cities like Houston and traditional taxi regulators have required fingerprinting for years, but Uber has prioritized speed and scale, relying on commercial vendors to access multi-jurisdictional databases and court records. According to Mashable, Uber considered more than 20 additional safety measures—including fingerprint screening—but rejected many of them over concerns about cost and the desire to onboard new drivers quickly.
Internal emails obtained by Mashable reveal that Uber executives were aware of these shortcomings. In a 2018 message, one executive admitted, “We are def not doing everything we can,” adding, “The fact this is an internal policy that we don’t feel comfortable talking about highlights the need for improvement here.” Such candid admissions underscore the tension within Uber between rapid expansion and ensuring passenger safety.
The consequences of these policies are stark. Between 2017 and 2022, Uber received reports of sexual abuse or misconduct against drivers on average every eight minutes, according to the company’s own safety disclosures cited by The New York Times. Uber has stated that roughly 75 percent of these reports fall into less severe categories, such as explicit remarks, flirtation, or comments on a passenger’s appearance. Still, this means that a serious report of sexual abuse or misconduct was filed every 32 minutes—an alarming statistic by any measure.
These numbers are not merely abstract. Several Uber drivers convicted of rape in the past five years had prior violent felony convictions, with at least two cases occurring in California—a state that supposedly has a lifetime ban on ride-hailing drivers with violent felony records. The U.S. Department of Justice adds further context: nearly a third of people arrested on rape charges have at least one felony conviction. This raises troubling questions about how many dangerous individuals have been given the keys to Uber vehicles, and whether the company’s policies are truly fit for purpose.
Perhaps the most detailed evidence of Uber’s screening failures comes from Massachusetts. In 2017, state officials conducted their own background checks on ride-hailing drivers and banned approximately 8,000 individuals who had previously been approved—mostly by Uber. This audit suggested that, depending on the state, riders had between a 1-in-4 and 1-in-10 chance of being matched with a driver who would not pass more rigorous regulatory standards. As Mashable notes, if Massachusetts is an indicator, Uber’s national vetting system leaves much to be desired.
Uber’s main competitor, Lyft, has taken a tougher stance. Lyft does not approve drivers with any violent convictions, regardless of how much time has passed, and has introduced features allowing riders to block specific drivers. This approach stands in contrast to Uber’s more permissive policies and highlights the patchwork nature of safety standards across the ride-hailing industry.
In response to mounting criticism, Uber points to its multi-layered screening process, which includes initial background checks and ongoing monitoring of driver records through third-party vendors. The company asserts that these measures reduce risk, but critics argue that the legacy gaps and state-by-state inconsistencies continue to endanger passengers. Survivor advocates insist that ride-hailing companies should err on the side of caution, adopting the most conservative standards for violent crime records and being more transparent about how they deactivate drivers and handle disputes.
Labor groups and reentry advocates, on the other hand, warn that blanket bans on hiring individuals with criminal records can reinforce inequality and deny people the opportunity to rejoin the workforce. They suggest more nuanced, individualized evaluations that consider the type of offense, how much time has passed, and evidence of rehabilitation. The debate reflects broader societal tensions between public safety and second chances.
For riders concerned about their own safety, both Uber and Lyft offer a range of in-app features, including trip sharing, emergency assistance, and, in some markets, audio recording pilots. Safety officials recommend that passengers verify the license plate and driver photo before entering a vehicle, sit in the back seat for easier exits, and keep trip details visible to a trusted contact. These steps, while helpful, can only go so far in mitigating risks that stem from systemic flaws in driver vetting.
Ultimately, the latest investigations lay bare a troubling reality: Uber’s screening policies, particularly the seven-year threshold and gaps in cross-state data, have allowed thousands of drivers with violent felony histories onto the platform. Unless Uber tightens its eligibility requirements and standardizes background checks nationwide, pressure from regulators, lawmakers, and the public is likely to intensify.
As ride-hailing becomes an ever more integral part of urban life, the challenge for Uber—and the broader industry—is clear: balancing the promise of mobility and opportunity with the non-negotiable imperative of passenger safety.
