State Senate panel foresees easy path for bill to protect Uber, Lyft from product liability lawsuits
PIERRE — A bill to shield ride-hailing companies from product liability lawsuits earned unanimous support from a South Dakota legislative committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took up that legislation, Senate Bill 166, on Tuesday at the Capitol.
The idea, according to Republican Sen. Carl Perry of Aberdeen, is to make sure companies like Uber or Lyft aren't held accountable under civil law in a manner that matches the standard applied to products like toothpaste, coffee makers or car seats. The one-sentence bill says product liability 'may not be maintained' against a 'digital network.'
In a South Dakota law, that means ride-hailing companies.
Under a bill passed in 2016 with the support of app-based taxi companies like Uber and Lyft, a 'digital network' is defined as 'any online-enabled application, software, website, or system offered or utilized by a transportation network company that enables a prearranged ride with a transportation network company driver.'
In 2022, state lawmakers passed a bill clarifying that drivers for such companies are independent contractors, not employees. That put the state on the side of tech companies in an issue that's divided state legislatures and voters for years.
California voters, for example, passed a measure in 2020 to classify such drivers as independent contractors in a campaign that received financial backing from tech companies. A lawsuit from labor groups attempted to overturn the law and won in a lower court, but the state's supreme court overturned the lower court's decision last summer.
Minnesota lawmakers, however, advanced worker protections for Uber drivers last year. Washington state and New York also have minimum pay provisions for such drivers.
Perry called his legislation 'a common sense bill to further clarify the rule in an already regulated industry.'
Uber Industries lobbyist Grace Beck told committee members the ride-hailing business is fundamentally different from one that makes things.
'These companies do not manufacture, design or sell physical products,' she said. 'It's only a phone app. Uber operates a digital platform that offers an important service to South Dakotans.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Brad Nail, a public policy lobbyist for Uber, pointed out that state law requires a ride-hailing company to carry $1 million in liability insurance to cover 'death, bodily injury, and property damage' to cover potential issues that might arise during a ride.
'The bill before you does not change that, and does not decrease the amount of insurance required,' Nail said.
The bill isn't tied to a South Dakota case, but to what Nail called 'a novel situation that has arisen in other states' where plaintiffs have tried to sue under product liability laws.
Nail didn't elaborate, but a case filed last fall in California alleges that the company failed to design an app that considers or adequately protects against the possibility of sexual assault by a driver.
Nail told lawmakers the $1 million liability coverage required by state law renders product liability lawsuits unnecessary.
The committee heard no opposition testimony. It voted unanimously to send SB 166 to the Senate floor. It then certified the bill for the consent calendar, meaning the Senate will vote for or against it without debate as part of a package of uncontroversial bills, unless any senator asks for the bill to be moved to the regular calendar.
Sen. Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs, said the bill 'makes sense.'
'Obviously there wasn't any opposition testimony,' Hulse said. 'If there was a problem, I would assume somebody would be up here saying it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it may be more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Advertisement Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. Advertisement The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet,' he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed " Trump accounts " may serve as a " backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice,' Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.' Advertisement Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free.' Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. 'There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Advertisement Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.'
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration is preparing to open a second immigration detention facility at a state prison in north Florida, as a federal judge decides the fate of the state's holding center for immigrants at an isolated airstrip in the Florida Everglades dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' DeSantis announced Thursday that the new facility is to be housed at the Baker Correctional Institution, a state prison about 43 miles (69 kilometers) west of Jacksonville. It is expected to hold 1,300 immigration detention beds, though that capacity could be expanded to 2,000, state officials said. After opening the Everglades facility last month, DeSantis justified opening the second detention center, dubbed 'Deportation Depot' by the state, by saying President Donald Trump's administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants. 'There is a demand for this,' DeSantis said. 'I'm confident it will be filled.'
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Liberal Jimmy Kimmel announces Italian citizenship. Ciao, baby!
Unfortunately, I've never been to Italy, but I've visited other countries in Europe. We can enjoy the beauty in other parts of the world and learn a lot from other cultures. But I still return to America happy to be home. I love my country, and I'd never become a citizen of another country, let alone do so because of America's current political climate. Yet, that's exactly what late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel just did. During an appearance on the "The Sarah Silverman Podcast," on Aug. 7, Kimmel said he obtained Italian citizenship and alluded that it was because of President Donald Trump, though he didn't expressly say that. "A lot of people I know are thinking about where they can get citizenship," Silverman said. Kimmel replied, "I did get Italian citizenship." "What's going on is as bad as you thought it was going to be," Kimmel said. Silverman replied, "Way worse." "It's so much worse. It's just unbelievable," Kimmel said. "Like I feel like it's probably even worse than he would like it to be." It's not clear if Kimmel plans to move to Italy or continue to live and work in the United States. Did someone forward you this newsletter?Sign up here to get it delivered in your inbox every Thursday. It's free! Kimmel has long been a harsh critic of Trump. Ironically, as Trump makes dramatic changes that will help the American people, late night talk shows like Kimmel's have taken a hit. "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert's show was canceled in July, even though his ratings beat Kimmel's and 'Tonight Show' host Jimmy Fallon's. Trump, not one to shy from trash talking his political foes, has predicted that Kimmel and Fallon will be canceled next. I have a sliver of respect for liberals who make good on their threat to leave America when a Republican is elected. At the same time, it's silly. We are blessed to live in the most powerful country in the world, and it's the people who elect our president, Republican or Democrat. If a person as wealthy and famous as Kimmel isn't happy to live in America because of Trump, by all means, don't let the door hit you on the way out. When an intelligent and funny guy like Kimmel says America under Trump is worse than he thought it would be, what does he mean? Our economy is thriving, the border is secure, taxes have been cut and there might soon be peace in the Middle East and Ukraine thanks to Trump. I guess that's not enough for Kimmel, So, enjoy the gelato. I'll enjoy my freedom. Read more from me and my colleagues:
