As Uber and Lyft fight efforts by Clark County officials to regulate them, one of their biggest concerns is over a provision that would require them to publicly identify their drivers.
It's proprietary information, they argue, and releasing it would violate their drivers' privacy.
With county commissioners preparing to discuss proposed regulations today, at least one Las Vegas taxicab company said it would take measures that would confirm the companies’ concerns: It would use the county driver lists to identify cab employees moonlighting as Uber or Lyft drivers.
An attorney for Frias Transportation Management, the largest transportation company in the state, said Frias would cross-reference its employee list with those of ride-hailing companies. The attorney, John Mowbray, said Frias had a responsibility to ensure its drivers were not working more than 12 hours a day, a regulation for taxicab drivers. Were cabdrivers to work after hours, he said, they could violate the regulation and put public safety at risk.
Frias employees, he said, were prohibited from working for Uber, Lyft or another competitor.
“We would address it on a case-by-case basis,” he said of an employee potentially on the list.
The commission is expected today to drop a provision requiring driver lists as part of their business licenses, after the county’s counsel released an opinion arguing it violated state law.
But it’s unlikely that the fight over driver lists will end there. The debate today is expected to shift to regulations at the airport, as the same legal opinion says there is nothing in state law that prohibits the airport from creating its own requirements, such as requesting driver lists.
To operate at the airport, ride-hailing companies need a separate permit in addition to obtaining a county business license. The Department of Aviation recently created a temporary operating permit, which Lyft agreed to and Uber objected to over driver-list language. The final airport operating permit is subject to county commission approval. It is likely to be discussed at today’s meeting.
And when it concerns the airport, Steve Sisolak, chairman of the Clark County Commission, said the county was not caving in on the driver list issue. He said he wanted language that would allow the airport to request Uber and Lyft driver lists, which could potentially be shared with the county.
He says knowing who is driving at the airport is important, given safety concerns, and he is not confident Uber or Lyft would provide information in a timely manner, were an incident to occur.
“Getting any information out of the company is like pulling teeth,” he said.
Companies like Uber have contended that the lists — an esoteric point of public policy at first glance — could become available through a public records request. Competitors could mine the information, they said, and poach their drivers. An Uber spokesperson said it was also a question of fairness, as other companies weren't required to hand over lists.
“No other Clark County businesses are required to give lists of independent contractors,” Uber’s Taylor Patterson said. “The ride-sharing industry deserves to be treated with equal fairness.”
Unlike Frias, two other cab companies — Yellow Checker Star and Bell Transportation — said they didn’t plan to use the lists but that they supported the county’s efforts to require the driver lists.
Both companies said they couldn’t prevent drivers from working for Uber and Lyft.
“I do not know of any reason that the cab companies want the list,” said Mike Sullivan, a lobbyist for Bell. “It is more about the county getting the information so they know who is driving and who should be licensed.” The county plans to require business licenses for all ride-hailing drivers.
The chief operating officer for Yellow Checker Star, Bill Shranko, said the county “certainly should be able to” access the list. Shranko said he also was concerned about drivers working past the 12-hour limit by picking up more work. He said it was something all companies must address.
“The methodology hasn’t been decided on,” Shranko said.
The Livery Operators Association, which represents the industry at large, did not comment.
Even if the final permit includes language allowing the airport to request lists, cab companies could face another hurdle. Uncertainty remains as to whether companies like Frias could even access a public copy of the list. “That’s the million-dollar question,” said Mowbray, the attorney for Frias.
It is rare for Uber to provide internal information to regulators. But earlier this year, the ride-hailing company did agree to provide the Nevada Transportation Authority, its state regulator, a list of driver names and vehicle information. Per statute, the list is confidential.
Unlike that information, Uber believes the airport lists could be accessed in a records request.
The county’s counsel did not respond to a request about whether the lists would be covered under a public records request. Sisolak was unsure whether the driver lists would be obtainable. He said it would be up to the district attorney and the attorney general, if a decision was appealed.
“If the media or the general public can access the list, then the cab companies should be able to access the list,” he said. “If they are public, they should get it. If they are not public, they shouldn’t get it.”