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 on May 22, 2026, would fundamentally rewrite the legal rules governing app-based transportation companies — and victims of rideshare accidents, assaults, and negligence may have only weeks to make their voices heard before a full House floor vote.
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. 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.
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 its agents or employees committed within the scope of their work. Uber and Lyft have long argued their drivers are independent contractors, not employees, to sidestep this doctrine. For over a decade, rideshare giants like Uber and Lyft have operated under a unique legal shield in California: by classifying their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, these companies have largely avoided vicarious liability — the legal principle that holds an employer responsible for the negligence of its workers.
Many state courts, however, have applied the common carrier framework to hold rideshare companies to a higher standard. A federal judge ruled on April 10, 2026 that Uber is a “common carrier” and thus owed a “non-delegable duty” to safely transport a woman who alleged that a driver on its platform sexually assaulted her — rejecting the ride-hailing company’s contention that it doesn’t carry passengers but merely connects them to others who independently provide transportation. The decision — issued in a bellwether case inside one of the largest personal injury MDLs in U.S. history — has sweeping implications for more than 3,000 pending lawsuits against the company.
The Fong amendment would erase that entire framework at the federal level. The section of the BUILD America 250 Act would ensure that rideshare companies “shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof […] for any harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle by an app-based driver,” protecting companies from legal liability even when presented with concerning information about a driver in a criminal background check, motor vehicle background check, customer complaint, safety test, or internal complaint.
The stakes are not theoretical. Rideshare crashes are costing U.S. drivers, passengers, and insurers a lot more than most people realize, including $2.5 billion in annual claims tied to rideshare accidents. Uber and Lyft both report fatality rates below the national average at 0.87 and 0.94 deaths per 100 million miles, respectively, yet rideshare drivers face 73% higher accident involvement rates than the general population due to increased road exposure. Distracted driving accounts for 32% of rideshare accidents, with drivers frequently checking phones for ride requests and navigation, while third-party drivers — rather than rideshare operators — cause 95% of fatal crashes involving Uber vehicles.
For assault survivors, the numbers are especially alarming. Uber alone received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct every 8 minutes over a five-year period. Since the beginning of 2026 alone, Uber has been found liable for two separate sexual assault cases involving drivers, including cases in Arizona and North Carolina. The Fong amendment would shield the company from exactly this type of accountability, regardless of the red flags it had previously ignored.
Beyond the federal fight, a significant new legal change has already taken effect at the state level. California enacted Senate Bill 371 (SB 371) — a major change to how rideshare insurance coverage works in the state. This law took effect January 1, 2026 and is now beginning to roll out as part of the state’s broader effort to make rideshare services like Uber and Lyft more affordable while balancing protections for drivers and passengers. SB 371 reduced the required UM/UIM coverage limit from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident — a roughly 94% reduction for an individual. This means that in California, even before the federal amendment becomes law, rideshare accident victims who are struck by an uninsured motorist already face dramatically limited recovery options.
Where the Bill Stands: Current Congressional Status as of August 2026
In the early morning hours of May 22, 2026, the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the BUILD America 250 Act, a sweeping multi-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. The U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved the BUILD America 250 Act (H.R. 8870) by a bipartisan vote of 62-2, advancing a five-year, $580 billion surface transportation reauthorization package. The bill will now wait until House leadership brings it to the House floor for consideration.
Though the bipartisan agreement on the text strengthens the case for House leadership to bring the bill to the floor for a vote as early as June or July, the U.S. Senate committees with jurisdiction over this bill have not released their text yet. With current surface transportation authorities set to expire on September 30, 2026, advocates are urging Congress to maintain full funding levels in any extension. That September 30 deadline means the pressure on Congress to act — and on victims’ advocates to stop the immunity provision — is intensifying with each passing week.
Opposition to the Fong amendment has been fierce and bipartisan. On June 9, 2026, 128 members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus and House Democratic Caucus, led by DWC Executive Steering Committee Member Debbie Dingell and co-leads Emilia Sykes and Hillary Scholten, sent Speaker Johnson a letter urging him to remove a dangerous provision from the BUILD America 250 Act that would likely shield rideshare companies from liability when passengers are sexually assaulted, injured, or killed during their rides. The American Association for Justice warned that the bill would let powerful corporations dodge accountability to victims and survivors, and deliver a bailout to companies including immunity for Uber and other rideshare platforms when passengers are sexually assaulted or catastrophically hurt.
The provision, which faced bipartisan opposition in markup, would shield rideshare companies from liability for crashes and sexual assaults caused by their negligence. This provision must be removed from the BUILD America 250 Act before it is considered on the House Floor. As of August 2026, the proposed federal immunity has not become law, so the existing state-law rules still apply and injured parties can still pursue a claim against the rideshare company as well as the driver.
The Human Cost: MDL Cases, Jury Verdicts, and What Is at Stake for Real Victims
No abstract policy debate captures the human cost of rideshare negligence as clearly as the ongoing federal multidistrict litigation. Thousands of survivors have come forward to seek justice, with more than 4,397 claims in the MDL as of August 2026. These cases allege that Uber failed to implement adequate safety measures, conducted insufficient driver background checks, and ignored repeated warnings about drivers with histories of misconduct — exactly the conduct the Fong amendment would immunize going forward.
The first two federal bellwether trials in 2026 have produced landmark results. On February 5, 2026, the first federal bellwether trial returned an $8.5 million verdict against Uber in Phoenix, Arizona. In the first bellwether case of the Uber MDL, the jury awarded plaintiff Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million in damages, finding that the driver was an apparent agent of the company even if it considered him an independent contractor. During sworn testimony in the first MDL trial, a senior Uber executive admitted that the company “has not done enough” to prevent sexual assaults on its platform. Plaintiffs argue this admission supports claims that Uber knew of risks but delayed meaningful safety protections.
In May 2026, the second federal bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL resulted in a jury award of $5,000 to a survivor but made a legally important finding: Uber qualifies as a common carrier — a classification that imposes a heightened duty of care to protect passengers. The woman had claimed that her driver had put his hand on her thigh during a 2019 ride before she bolted out of the passenger side door. While the dollar award was small, the common carrier determination is significant because it strengthens the legal framework for other survivors’ claims.
Uber has appealed the previous two bellwether trial verdicts, which found it vicariously liable for drivers’ actions. The resolution of these appeals should shed some light on the viability of vicarious liability as a legal theory in cases across the MDL. The third bellwether trial in the Uber sexual assault MDL, originally set for September 14, 2026, has been pushed back to October 5, 2026, with jury selection to take place the week prior.
Meanwhile, the Lyft sexual assault litigation is in its early procedural stages. In February 2026, a motion to consolidate was granted, and the existing cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Rita F. Lin. A March 2026 court filing confirmed Uber has quietly settled some MDL claims, with funds deposited into a common benefit fund.
For victims evaluating the value of their claims under today’s legal framework, settlement data provides important context. For Uber/Lyft sexual assault claims in 2026, national data points to an average settlement near $400,000, with common outcomes spanning $50,000 to $1,000,000 depending on evidence, provable damages, and venue. Top-tier cases involving severe physical injuries, corroborating digital evidence, and clear negligent hiring/supervision patterns can exceed $1 million. For physical injury cases, rideshare settlements typically range from $15,000 to $150,000 for moderate injuries, with severe cases reaching $500,000 or more. If the Fong amendment passes, these recoveries — built on vicarious liability and common carrier doctrine — could disappear entirely.
In a chart submitted by plaintiffs in June, their attorneys identified how many MDL cases have arisen in each state and whether each state has common carrier non-delegable duty laws that would apply to Uber. In 21 states that encompass about half of the MDL cases, there is little chance of a viable vicarious liability claim that would hold Uber accountable for its drivers’ actions — meaning the federal amendment would effectively eliminate the remaining legal pathways for those victims as well.
What Victims and Advocates Can Do Right Now
The window for action is narrow and closing. As of 2026, the proposed federal immunity has not become law, so the existing state-law rules still apply and injured parties can pursue a claim against the rideshare company as well as the driver. Because filing deadlines vary by state and the law could change, it is wise to have your case evaluated promptly rather than waiting.
For rideshare accident and assault survivors, the most important immediate steps are:
- File your claim now, under current law. Every day the Fong amendment moves closer to a House floor vote is a day closer to potential immunity for Uber and Lyft. State statutes of limitations already impose hard deadlines; the threat of federal preemption makes prompt action even more critical.
- Preserve all evidence. Non-economic damages — compensation for pain, suffering, trauma, and loss of enjoyment of life — often drive value beyond medical bills in validated assault cases. Early evidence preservation (app data, location logs, messages) and trauma-informed lawyering are crucial to outcome quality.
- Contact your representatives. Congress should strengthen rideshare safety protections and corporate accountability — not create pathways for immunity for multibillion-dollar corporations amid ongoing reports of sexual assault tied to rideshare platforms. Constituent calls and letters to House members remain among the most effective tools for stripping the amendment before a floor vote.
- Understand your state’s specific legal landscape. California victims, for example, must now navigate Senate Bill 371, which quietly reshaped the insurance landscape for rideshare accident victims, slashing the uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage that passengers can access through Uber and Lyft. Other states have different common carrier statutes and different limitations periods.
- Work with an attorney experienced in rideshare litigation. A study from Martindale-Nolo found that victims who worked with an attorney recovered nearly twice as much as those who negotiated alone. The complexity of rideshare insurance tiers — and the rapidly changing legal landscape — makes professional representation more important than ever.
If the amendment survives, insurance firms would begin holding rideshare drivers personally responsible for passenger injuries, unless a court decides that rideshare companies engaged in criminal activity or deems them “grossly negligent” — a much higher bar. Survivors have stated: “We are worthy of the right to try and hold these rideshare platforms legally accountable for failing to protect us when they told us to trust them to get home safely.”
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 authored by Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA) and attached to a federal surface transportation reauthorization bill. 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. The American Association for Justice characterized the provision as granting Uber blanket immunity when drivers commit sexual assault or drive recklessly, stripping victims of their right to seek recourse.
Has the BUILD America 250 Act become law yet, and can it still be stopped?
H.R. 8870 was reported out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 22, 2026, with this language included, and awaits a floor vote by the full House. As of August 2026, the bill has not become law, meaning current state-law protections remain in force. Members of Congress have demanded that Speaker Johnson remove this provision from the BUILD America 250 Act before the bill moves to the House floor. With current surface transportation authorities set to expire on September 30, 2026, the legislative timeline is compressed and advocates must act quickly to ensure the immunity provision is stripped before any floor vote.
How would the Fong amendment affect the more than 4,000 pending Uber sexual assault MDL cases?
More than 4,397 claims are pending in the MDL as of August 2026. The Fong amendment’s impact on these cases would be complex and depend on whether courts apply the new federal standard retroactively. However, the structural threat is clear: the bill as currently written would provide rideshare companies with immunity from any injury, sexual assault, and fatality case no matter the red flags from any criminal background check, motor vehicle background check, customer complaint, safety test, or internal complaint. The federal judge overseeing the Uber MDL for sexual assault directed both sides, as of July 30, 2026, to develop a new bellwether trial plan, saying the first trials did not provide clear answers on Uber’s alleged negligence. The ongoing federal litigation underscores why the immunity amendment’s passage would be so devastating: just as courts are beginning to establish Uber’s accountability, federal law could shut that door entirely.
What legal doctrines does the Fong amendment specifically eliminate, and what do they mean for victims?
The Fong amendment targets three core legal theories that currently allow rideshare accident victims to hold companies like Uber and Lyft accountable. First, common carrier doctrine imposes a heightened duty of care on entities that hold themselves out to transport members of the public for hire. On April 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a landmark pretrial order in the ongoing MDL over Uber passenger sexual assaults, finding that Uber owes a non-delegable duty to safely transport riders and cannot escape liability simply by labeling its drivers as independent contractors. Second, non-delegable duty means that even when Uber outsources driving to contractors, it cannot legally shed the safety obligations that come with being a common carrier. Even if Uber’s drivers are independent contractors, the company cannot legally outsource its duty to keep passengers safe. Third, vicarious liability allows a court to hold Uber responsible for its driver’s conduct when the driver is acting as the company’s apparent agent. Federal juries have now ruled against Uber in the first two test trials of the passenger sexual assault MDL, and the court has held that Uber can be treated as a common carrier — a ruling with significance well beyond those two cases. The Fong amendment would eliminate all three doctrines in a single stroke at the federal level.
What should I do if I have a pending rideshare injury or assault claim in 2026?
If you have an existing or potential rideshare injury or assault claim in 2026, you should treat the current legal window as urgent. The proposed federal immunity has not become law, so the existing state-law rules still apply and you can pursue a claim against the rideshare company as well as the driver. Because filing deadlines vary by state and the law could change, it is wise to have your case evaluated promptly rather than waiting. California claimants face the additional complication of Senate Bill 371, which went into effect on January 1, 2026 and drastically reduced the available policy limits to fault-free injured passengers, reducing required coverage from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident — a roughly 94% reduction. Document everything, preserve all app data and communications, seek immediate medical attention, and consult with a personal injury attorney who handles rideshare cases before the legal landscape shifts further. A personal injury settlement calculator
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.