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. 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.
Specifically, the Fong amendment would eliminate the application of common carrier doctrine, non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability principles to app-based transportation companies at the federal level. 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 erase that framework entirely, replacing it with a standard requiring victims to prove the company itself was grossly negligent or committed criminal wrongdoing before any corporate liability attaches.
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. Many state courts, however, have applied common carrier and non-delegable duty frameworks to hold these companies responsible regardless of employment classification.
The Fong amendment would end that workaround entirely. If the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment becomes federal law, no state court could apply common carrier status, non-delegable duty, or vicarious liability to any app-based transportation company. A victim of a drunk Uber driver, a Lyft passenger assaulted by their driver, or a family who lost a loved one in a crash caused by a fatigued rideshare operator would each face a nearly insurmountable burden: proving that corporate executives at Uber or Lyft were personally and grossly negligent, or that the company itself committed a criminal act.
This standard is extraordinarily difficult to meet in practice. Most corporate liability in personal injury law flows through the doctrines the amendment would abolish. Stripping those doctrines away federally would insulate rideshare corporations from accountability in ways that no ordinary defendant — a taxi company, a bus line, a trucking firm — currently enjoys. For families researching options after a fatal rideshare incident, a wrongful death calculator reflects the current legal standards that would be eliminated under this amendment.
Where the Bill Stands: Current Congressional Status as of June 2026
As of June 6, 2026, the BUILD America 250 Act has cleared only one legislative hurdle. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill — including the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment — on May 22, 2026. The legislation has not yet received a full House floor vote. It has not been introduced or voted upon in the Senate. It has not been signed into law. Critically, this means the window for public comment, constituent advocacy, and legal challenge remains open — but it may not remain open for long.
The legislative pipeline from committee approval to full passage can move quickly when leadership prioritizes a bill. Infrastructure legislation often attracts bipartisan support, which can accelerate floor scheduling. Victims, advocates, and concerned citizens have a narrow and rapidly closing opportunity to contact their House and Senate representatives to demand the Fong amendment be stripped from the final bill before it reaches a floor vote.
The following table summarizes the current legislative status and key legal implications of the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment as of June 2026:
| Legislative Milestone | Status (June 2026) | Implication for Victims |
|---|---|---|
| House Committee Approval | Completed — May 22, 2026 | Amendment is now part of the official bill text |
| Full House Floor Vote | Pending — not yet scheduled | Window for constituent opposition still open |
| Senate Introduction & Vote | Not yet begun | Second opportunity to remove or defeat amendment |
| Presidential Signature | Not yet applicable | Final step before federal preemption takes effect |
| Effect on Pending MDL Cases (3,571+ sexual assault cases) | Retroactivity uncertain; legal challenge likely | Pending cases may face immediate motions to dismiss |
| May 2026 North Carolina Jury Verdict | $5,000 awarded to sexual assault victim vs. Uber | Demonstrates current state-law accountability still functions |
You can track the official status of federal legislation in real time through Congress.gov, the official database of U.S. legislative activity.
The Human Cost: MDL Cases, Jury Verdicts, and What Is at Stake for Real Victims
The timing of the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment is especially troubling when viewed against the backdrop of active litigation. As of June 2026, more than 3,571 sexual assault cases against Uber are pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding. These cases represent thousands of passengers — overwhelmingly women — who allege they were assaulted by Uber drivers and are now seeking accountability through the very legal doctrines the Fong amendment would eliminate.
On May 14, 2026, a North Carolina federal jury ordered Uber to pay $5,000 to a woman alleging sexual assault — marking the second consecutive bellwether trial in the MDL to result in a verdict for the passenger. Bellwether verdicts are significant: they signal to all parties how juries view the underlying liability theories and often drive global settlement negotiations. The Fong amendment, if passed, could fundamentally undercut the legal theories supporting every one of those 3,571 pending claims.
Beyond the MDL, thousands of passengers are injured every year in rideshare vehicle accidents that are not assaults — collisions caused by distracted driving, fatigued drivers, or speeding. When comparing the legal standards that apply to rideshare crashes versus ordinary car accidents, the differences are significant. A car accident settlement calculator can illustrate the baseline compensation frameworks that apply in traditional auto crashes, frameworks that rideshare victims currently benefit from and would lose under federal preemption. In cases involving traumatic brain injuries from rideshare crashes, those stakes are even higher — a brain injury calculator can help families understand the full scope of damages at risk.
For a comprehensive overview of how state-level common carrier duties protect transportation passengers, Justia’s legal database on common carrier negligence doctrine provides detailed jurisdictional analysis.
What Victims and Advocates Can Do Right Now
The BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment has not become law. The full House has not voted. The Senate has not acted. This means every constituent, every advocacy organization, and every person who has been harmed by a rideshare company has a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome — but that window is finite and closing.
Here is what you can do before a potential floor vote:
- Contact your House representative directly and request they oppose the Fong amendment or vote against the BUILD America 250 Act unless the immunity provision is removed.
- Contact both of your U.S. Senators and urge them to refuse to advance any legislation containing federal preemption of state common carrier or vicarious liability doctrines for app-based companies.
- Share your story — members of Congress respond to constituent accounts of harm. If you or a family member were injured in a rideshare accident or assaulted by a rideshare driver, your testimony matters in advocacy communications.
- Support organizations tracking passenger safety legislation, including consumer protection groups and transportation safety advocates who are monitoring this bill’s progress.
- Consult a legal professional immediately if you have a pending rideshare injury claim. The passage of federal preemption legislation could affect the viability of ongoing cases, and time-sensitive legal decisions may need to be made before the bill’s status changes.
The Fong amendment represents one of the most significant federal intrusions into state tort law in recent memory — executed not as a stand-alone bill with full public debate, but as an amendment buried within broad infrastructure legislation. The BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment deserves the scrutiny of every person who has ever stepped into an Uber or Lyft and assumed the law would protect them if something went wrong.
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 and included in the BUILD America 250 Act, a federal infrastructure bill. The amendment was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 22, 2026. It would use federal law to preempt state-level common carrier, non-delegable duty, and vicarious liability doctrines as applied to app-based transportation companies like Uber and Lyft, effectively shielding these corporations from liability for driver harm unless gross negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the company itself can be proven.
Has the BUILD America 250 Act become law yet, and can it still be stopped?
As of June 6, 2026, the BUILD America 250 Act has not become law. It cleared the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 22, 2026, but still requires a full House floor vote and separate Senate passage before it can be sent to the President for signature. Because the bill is only at the committee stage, there remains a meaningful window for public opposition, constituent advocacy, and potential amendment removal before the legislation can take effect. Victims and advocates are encouraged to contact their elected representatives immediately.
How would the Fong amendment affect the more than 3,500 pending Uber sexual assault MDL cases?
As of June 2026, more than 3,571 sexual assault cases against Uber are pending in federal multidistrict litigation. These cases rely heavily on the common carrier and vicarious liability doctrines that the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment would federally preempt. If the bill passes, Uber and Lyft would likely file motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in pending cases, arguing that federal law bars application of the state doctrines underlying the claims. While retroactivity is legally uncertain and would likely be challenged in court, the threat to pending MDL cases is substantial and immediate.
What legal doctrines does the Fong amendment specifically eliminate, and what do they mean for victims?
The Fong amendment would preempt three critical state law doctrines: (1) Common carrier doctrine, which imposes heightened duties of care on companies that transport members of the public for hire; (2) Non-delegable duty, which prevents companies from escaping liability by outsourcing dangerous work to independent contractors; and (3) Vicarious liability (respondeat superior), which holds companies responsible for harmful acts committed by their agents within the scope of work. Together, these doctrines form the backbone of most successful rideshare injury claims. Eliminating them federally means victims would need to prove the corporation itself was grossly negligent or criminally culpable — a standard that defeats most claims before they begin.
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 a qualified personal injury attorney as soon as possible to assess how potential passage of the BUILD America 250 Act rideshare immunity amendment could affect your case. Time-sensitive legal decisions — including the filing of claims, amendment of pleadings, or acceleration of settlement discussions — may be advisable before the bill’s status changes. You should also monitor the bill’s progress through Congress and consider contacting your elected representatives to oppose the Fong amendment. Do not assume your claim is automatically protected by current state law if federal legislation passes that preempts those protections.
Legal disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction regarding your specific legal situation.
Related reading: car accident settlement calculator
Related reading: car accident 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.