A sweeping piece of federal infrastructure legislation moving through Congress in 2026 contains a little-noticed amendment that could permanently strip millions of rideshare passengers of their right to hold Uber and Lyft accountable for driver misconduct. The BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment, authored by Rep. Vince Fong and approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has cleared committee but still awaits a full House floor vote — and victims of rideshare accidents, assaults, and negligence may have only weeks to make their voices heard before that vote takes place.
What Is the BUILD America 250 Act and Why Does It Matter to Rideshare Victims?
The BUILD America 250 Act is a broad infrastructure and transportation bill designed to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary with sweeping investment in American infrastructure. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure released H.R. 8870, the BUILD America 250 Act, a five-year surface transportation legislation proposal that authorizes $580 billion over fiscal years 2027 through 2031. But embedded within the legislation is an amendment from Rep. Vince Fong that has alarmed passenger safety advocates, personal injury attorneys, and consumer rights groups across the country. The BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment would use federal law to preempt — meaning override and nullify — existing state-level legal doctrines that currently allow injured rideshare passengers to pursue meaningful compensation from companies like Uber and Lyft.
The Fong amendment would expressly preempt state common carrier, non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability doctrines as they apply to app-based rideshare companies. Under current state law in most jurisdictions, rideshare companies can be held responsible for the harmful actions of their drivers because they function as common carriers — entities that hold themselves out to the public for hire and bear heightened duties of care. The amendment would preempt state common carrier, non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability doctrines for app-based companies, which means Uber, Lyft, and similar companies could not be held liable for harm caused by their drivers unless the company itself was grossly negligent or committed criminal wrongdoing.
For the average rideshare passenger injured in an accident or assaulted by a driver, this distinction is not merely academic — it is the difference between a viable legal claim and no claim at all. Compounding the concern for injured passengers in 2026, Senate Bill 371 took effect on January 1, 2026, reducing the required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for rideshare passengers from $1 million to just $60,000 per person — a dramatic rollback that leaves seriously injured victims far more exposed than they were even a year ago. If you are trying to understand what your case might be worth under today’s legal standards, a personal injury settlement calculator can help you estimate potential compensation before the legal landscape changes further.
You can review the official text of federal preemption statutes and their interaction with state tort law through Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute on preemption doctrine.
The Fong Amendment: How Federal Preemption Would Gut State Liability Protections
To understand the stakes of the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment, it is necessary to understand what vicarious liability and common carrier doctrine actually do for injured passengers today. Under vicarious liability — also called respondeat superior — an employer or principal can be held legally responsible for the harmful acts of an agent or employee carried out in the course of their duties. For rideshare passengers, this means that when an Uber or Lyft driver causes an accident or commits an assault, the company itself can be named as a defendant and held accountable for damages.
Common carrier doctrine goes even further. Because rideshare companies hold themselves out to the general public as transportation providers for hire, courts in most states have recognized them as common carriers — a legal status that imposes the highest duty of care owed to passengers under tort law. This heightened standard means rideshare companies cannot simply point to their driver classification policies and walk away from responsibility when passengers are harmed. The non-delegable duty doctrine reinforces this by preventing companies from contracting away their safety obligations to independent third parties, including gig workers classified as independent contractors.
The Fong amendment would eliminate all three of these doctrines at the federal level for app-based transportation companies. The practical effect would be to insulate Uber and Lyft from liability in the vast majority of rideshare injury and assault cases, because plaintiffs would be required to prove the company itself — not just its driver — was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal conduct. That is an extraordinarily high bar that few cases could clear, no matter how serious the injuries or how reckless the driver’s behavior.
Passenger safety advocates point out that this immunity would arrive at a particularly harmful moment. Rideshare usage has continued to grow in 2026, and with it, the volume of reported accidents and driver misconduct incidents. The amendment would apply retroactively to pending litigation in many interpretations of the bill’s language, potentially extinguishing thousands of existing claims overnight if it becomes law.
Where the Bill Stands: Current Congressional Status as of 2026
As of July 14, 2026, the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment has cleared the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but has not yet been brought to a full House floor vote. That procedural posture is significant: the amendment is not law, it has not passed Congress, and it can still be stopped, amended, or stripped from the bill entirely before final passage.
The bill’s path to enactment requires a full House floor vote, passage through the Senate, reconciliation of any differences between House and Senate versions, and presidential signature. Each of those steps represents an opportunity for advocates, constituents, and lawmakers to intervene. Consumer safety groups and plaintiff’s attorneys have been urging rideshare accident and assault victims to contact their congressional representatives directly, particularly members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which would likely take up the bill if it advances past the full House.
The window for public advocacy is open but may be narrowing. Legislative observers note that infrastructure bills of this scale often move quickly once they reach the floor, leaving little time for targeted amendments to be challenged or removed. Victims, advocates, and concerned passengers are encouraged to act now rather than wait for the bill to advance further.
The Human Cost: MDL Cases, Jury Verdicts, and What Is at Stake for Real Victims
The stakes of the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment are not abstract. They are measured in the lives and losses of real people who have been injured in rideshare crashes or assaulted by rideshare drivers — and who are currently relying on existing legal doctrines to pursue justice.
As of September 1, 2026, more than 4,500 Uber cases were pending in federal court, a caseload that reflects years of accumulated harm to passengers across the country. Many of these cases involve sexual assault allegations against drivers, and they are being litigated precisely because current law allows plaintiffs to hold Uber accountable as a common carrier with non-delegable duties of passenger safety. If the Fong amendment passes and is interpreted to apply retroactively, legal experts warn it could effectively nullify thousands of these pending claims in a single legislative stroke.
Recent jury verdicts in 2026 illustrate exactly what is at stake financially and legally for victims pursuing claims under the current legal framework. On January 28, 2026, a Bergen County jury awarded $19 million total to Brandon Crawley for injuries sustained in an Uber crash — a verdict that depended on the company’s status and duties under existing state liability law. In February 2026, a federal jury in Phoenix found Uber liable and awarded Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million in compensatory damages in the first federal Uber sexual assault bellwether trial, a landmark result that legal observers say could shape the trajectory of thousands of similar pending cases. These verdicts represent the kind of accountability that the Fong amendment is specifically designed to prevent going forward.
Rideshare accident victims are already navigating significant changes to the insurance landscape in 2026. The January 1, 2026 implementation of Senate Bill 371 slashed required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for rideshare passengers from $1 million to $60,000 per person — meaning that passengers seriously injured by uninsured or underinsured drivers now face a far more limited insurance safety net than they did just a year ago. If the Fong amendment also eliminates company liability, injured passengers could find themselves with no meaningful avenue for full compensation regardless of how catastrophic their injuries are.
For victims with pending claims, the urgency to move quickly with experienced legal counsel has never been greater. The combination of reduced UM/UIM coverage floors, potential federal preemption of state liability doctrines, and an increasingly complex litigation environment makes 2026 a critical year to understand and protect your legal rights.
What Victims and Advocates Can Do Right Now
If you are a rideshare accident or assault victim with a pending claim or a potential claim, the most important thing you can do in 2026 is consult with an experienced rideshare injury attorney as soon as possible. The legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and decisions made today about how to pursue your claim — which court to file in, which legal theories to advance, and how to document your damages — could have significant consequences depending on how the BUILD America 250 Act ultimately resolves.
Beyond protecting your own legal interests, there are concrete steps you can take as an advocate. You can contact your U.S. Representative and urge them to oppose the Fong amendment or support its removal from the BUILD America 250 Act before the full House floor vote. You can contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to oppose any version of the bill that includes federal preemption of state rideshare liability doctrines. You can share information about the amendment with other rideshare users, passenger safety organizations, and community groups who may not yet be aware of the threat it poses.
Consumer advocacy organizations that focus on transportation safety and corporate accountability are also actively tracking the bill and can provide additional resources, template letters to Congress, and opportunities to join coordinated advocacy efforts. The more voices that reach Congress before a floor vote occurs, the greater the likelihood that the immunity provision can be challenged, modified, or removed entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions About the BUILD America 250 Act Rideshare Immunity Amendment
What is the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment and who authored it?
The BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment is a provision embedded within the broader BUILD America 250 Act infrastructure bill that would use federal law to preempt state-level common carrier, non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability doctrines as they apply to app-based rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. The amendment was authored by Rep. Vince Fong and was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 2026. If enacted, it would make it dramatically more difficult for rideshare passengers to hold companies legally accountable for accidents and assaults caused by their drivers, because plaintiffs would need to prove gross negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the company itself rather than simply proving the driver caused harm while operating on the platform.
Has the BUILD America 250 Act become law yet, and can it still be stopped?
As of July 14, 2026, the BUILD America 250 Act has not become law. The rideshare immunity amendment has cleared the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but still awaits a full House floor vote. After a House floor vote, the bill would need to pass the Senate, survive any conference committee reconciliation process, and receive a presidential signature before becoming law. At each of these stages, the Fong amendment can be challenged, stripped from the bill, or modified. Advocates and victims still have meaningful opportunities to influence the outcome, but the window may be narrowing as the bill advances through the legislative process.
How would the Fong amendment affect the more than 4,500 pending Uber cases in federal court?
As of September 1, 2026, more than 4,500 Uber cases are pending in federal court, many involving sexual assault allegations and serious accident injuries. Legal experts warn that if the Fong amendment passes and is interpreted to apply retroactively — which some readings of the bill’s language would support — it could effectively extinguish thousands of these existing claims by eliminating the legal doctrines on which they are built. Plaintiffs who currently have viable cases under common carrier, non-delegable duty, or vicarious liability theories could find their claims dismissed or drastically weakened if the amendment becomes law. This is one of the primary reasons advocates are urging victims with pending claims to consult with legal counsel immediately and to understand how the legislation might affect their specific cases.
What legal doctrines does the Fong amendment specifically eliminate, and what do they mean for victims?
The Fong amendment would preempt three key state law doctrines as applied to app-based rideshare companies. Vicarious liability, also known as respondeat superior, allows injured parties to hold a company responsible for harm caused by its agents or employees acting within the scope of their duties. Common carrier doctrine imposes the highest duty of care on transportation companies that hold themselves out to the public for hire, which courts in most states have applied to Uber and Lyft. Non-delegable duty doctrine prevents companies from escaping their safety obligations by classifying workers as independent contractors. Together, these three doctrines form the legal foundation that allows rideshare passengers to pursue meaningful compensation from companies rather than only from individual drivers who may have limited personal assets. The Fong amendment would eliminate all three at the federal level for rideshare companies, leaving injured passengers with dramatically reduced legal options.
What should I do if I have a pending rideshare injury or assault claim in 2026?
If you have a pending rideshare injury or assault claim in 2026, you should consult with an experienced rideshare accident attorney as soon as possible to understand how the BUILD America 250 Act and other recent legal changes — including the January 1, 2026 implementation of Senate Bill 371, which reduced required UM/UIM coverage for rideshare passengers from $1 million to $60,000 per person — may affect your specific situation. Your attorney can advise you on litigation strategy, court selection, applicable legal theories, and how to document and preserve your damages in light of a shifting legal landscape. You should also preserve all evidence related to your claim, including app records, communications, medical records, and any documentation of the incident itself. Acting quickly is critical, both because of ordinary statutes of limitations and because legislative developments in 2026 may alter the legal terrain in ways that affect pending cases.
Jennifer Torres is a Rideshare Accident Claims Researcher with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing rideshare accident claims only (high value) cases, Jennifer helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Jennifer is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.