Uber Faces Regulatory Showdown in Colorado Over Proposed Safety Bill

Uber has threatened to cease operations in Colorado if a proposed bill mandating stricter safety measures becomes law. The legislation, HB25-1291, would require rideshare companies to implement audio and video recording in vehicles, conduct biannual background checks on drivers, and prohibit offering snacks or drinks to passengers. Uber argues these requirements would impose unsustainable costs, potentially forcing the company to exit the state¹.

Colorado’s Safety Bill and Uber’s Response

The bill, introduced by Colorado State Representative Jenny Willford (D), follows her personal experience with assault by an impersonator posing as a rideshare driver. Willford has framed the legislation as a necessary step to protect passengers, particularly women and vulnerable groups. Uber, however, contends that the proposed rules are impractical. In a statement, the company called the bill “deeply flawed” and warned it “risks doing more harm than good” by reducing transportation options¹.

This isn’t the first time Uber has threatened to leave a market over regulatory changes. In 2024, the company made similar warnings in Minneapolis when the city council passed ordinances guaranteeing higher wages for drivers. Uber ultimately remained after the state government intervened to broker a compromise¹. The pattern suggests Uber may be using the threat of exit as a negotiation tactic, though Colorado lawmakers appear unwilling to back down.

FTC Lawsuit Adds to Uber’s Regulatory Challenges

Separately, Uber faces legal action from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over alleged deceptive practices related to its Uber One subscription service. The FTC claims Uber charged users without consent, promised unrealistic savings, and made cancellation unnecessarily difficult—sometimes requiring up to 32 steps across 23 screens². The agency also alleges Uber violated its “click to cancel” rule, which took effect in May 2024 to curb predatory subscription tactics³.

Uber denies wrongdoing, stating its processes “follow the letter and spirit of the law” and that cancellation now takes “20 seconds.” However, the company has a history of FTC settlements, including a 2017 case over privacy violations and a 2022 settlement over driver wage misrepresentation².

Broader Implications for Gig Economy Regulation

The Colorado bill highlights ongoing tensions between gig-economy platforms and regulators attempting to impose traditional employment safeguards. While Uber frames the debate as a choice between flexibility and overregulation, critics argue the company prioritizes scalability over accountability. The outcome could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, particularly those with high rideshare usage.

For security professionals, the proposed audio/video recording mandate raises questions about data storage and access controls. Rideshare vehicles could become targets for adversaries seeking to harvest sensitive passenger conversations or driver biometric data. Companies operating in regulated industries should monitor this case for insights into balancing operational feasibility with compliance demands.

Conclusion

Uber’s standoff in Colorado reflects broader challenges facing gig-economy platforms as lawmakers demand greater accountability. The company’s simultaneous legal battles with the FTC underscore growing regulatory scrutiny of its business practices. While Uber has historically negotiated compromises, Colorado’s safety-focused bill may prove harder to circumvent. The result could reshape rideshare operations nationwide—or leave millions of Coloradans without access to the service.