[NAGDU] Rideshare denials

[Al Elia]

Fellow NAGDU members,

I want everyone to know that NFB has been working and continues to work  
with the rideshare companies to address the problem of denials. You have 
all heard me talk about the SelfID system that we proposed to them, and 
that they are investigating how to implement. I hope that we will hear 
from at least one of them this summer on a timeline for implementation. 
While it will not solve all of our problems overnight, we believe it 
will be more effective and less burdensome on us as riders than the 
current denial reporting/investigation system. We also believe the 
differences between our proposed  SelfID system and the one Uber 
implemented elsewhere in 2021 will lead to greater reductions in denials 
and a better rider experience when denials occur.

An Uber representative  will be presenting at our convention in Orlando 
to both the NAGDU seminar and business meeting, as well as holding a 
town-hall session for all NFB members. We expect them to tell us about 
their recent, current, and future plans to address denials and 
accessibility. We hope the NAGDU and NFB membership will respectfully 
but firmly encourage them to do more and move more quickly.

As a result of our advocacy, both Uber and Lyft have improved their 
driver education around service animals. We know that education will not 
itself  solve the denials problem, but we believe it is important to 
assure that drivers understand the difference between pets and service 
animals. It is also important to ensure that drivers who deny cannot 
claim ignorance, whether ignorance that a dog is a service animal or 
that they are required by law and policy to transport them, which we 
have been told are the primary reasons drivers say they refused to 
transport a service animal.  NFB has impressed upon the companies that 
agreeing to company terms and policies without reading them is no 
excuse, and that just as the companies insist on holding riders to 
arbitration and class waivers even if they didn’t read them, they need 
to hold drivers to their agreement to transport service animals even if 
they didn’t read them.

Regarding resolutions, NFB passed resolutions condemning and deploring 
Uber and Lyft in 2022. See [2022 
Resolutions](https://nfb.org/resources/speeches-and-reports/resolutions/2022-resolutions) 
No. 2022-13 and 2022-14. Those resolutions remain NFB policy until they 
are withdrawn. I do not expect NFB to withdraw them until Lyft and Uber 
have demonstrated a less tolerant approach to drivers who deny riders 
with service animals. NFB generally does not entertain resolutions that 
restate current NFB policy unless something has changed to warrant a new 
resolution. Unfortunately, not much has changed with respect to 
rideshare denials. That said, as a result of our advocacy, Uber and Lyft 
have addressed one of the demands of our resolutions by making complete 
ride  history available, including cancelled rides. If this is not 
active in your app, it should be soon.

Finally, I’m unclear what more we would ask NFB to do. Because of the 
aforementioned arbitration terms, it is very difficult to sue rideshare 
companies in court and obtain systemic relief. Doing so requires member 
plaintiffs who have never signed up to use one of the rideshare 
companies, but who can legitimately claim that they would sign up for an 
account if not for rampant denials. At this point, it is very difficult 
to find a guide dog user  who has the technology to use rideshare but 
has never used rideshare, especially since nearly all of us have at some 
point signed up for both in the hope that we can get a driver from one 
if we are denied by the other.  Even were we to find such members, the 
litigation would almost certainly cut off our discussions with Uber and 
Lyft, thus depriving us of the ability to ensure that whatever they 
build for SelfID or some other solution actually works and benefits us. 
We have already had to explain why a small tweak to a potential solution 
would result in that potential solution becoming a definite additional 
problem. As for protests, we have discussed them, but believe to be 
effective we would need at least fifty guide dog handlers to march 
somewhere. We have also discussed needing to have the protest during the 
week for maximum effect, and that the best place to protest is likely in 
front of Uber and/or Lyft’s HQs in San Francisco. We are concerned 
about being able to get at least fifty guide dog users to San Francisco, 
likely have to spend at least one night there, and take off work to do 
that during the week. While we certainly would welcome the participation 
of our non-guide-dog using federation family as well, we believe it is 
important for media optics to have a predominantly guide-dog using 
protest population, given what we’d be protesting.

All of that is not  to say we are meekly awaiting solutions. We are 
working to develop self-help resources  to allow guide dog users to go 
to small claims court to pursue monetary damages in states where that is 
allowed. We are also working to ensure that paratransit systems hold 
rideshare companies accountable for guide dog denials when those systems 
subsidize rideshares for riders with guide dogs. We believe these 
efforts, along with our direct advocacy with the rideshare companies, 
will be most effective in addressing the rideshare denials we all seek 
to reduce and eliminate.

If others have ideas of what more NFB can do to address rideshare 
denials, I welcome those ideas and, if they are workable, I would be 
happy to present them to the advocacy team. I also look forward to 
further  discussion at the convention in Orlando.

Thank you all very much.

Yours,

/Æ

Al Elia