HR-1082-117
Became Public Law No: 117-330.
Sponsored by Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
What it does
Sami's Law requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to produce a report to Congress every two years on ride-sharing safety. Each report would cover: (1) the number of fatal and non-fatal physical and sexual assaults involving ride-share drivers and passengers; (2) the nature of background checks ride-share companies conduct on prospective drivers; and (3) the safety measures companies have taken to protect both riders and drivers.
Who benefits
Ride-share passengers — particularly those who have experienced or are at risk of assault — would gain from greater public transparency about safety incidents. Ride-share drivers, who are also victims of passenger-initiated assaults, would have their experiences formally counted and reported. Congress and state legislatures would receive standardized data to inform potential future legislation. Researchers, journalists, and advocacy groups focused on transportation safety would gain access to a consistent federal data source.
Who is hurt
Ride-share companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft) and traditional taxicab operators could face reputational harm if reported assault statistics are high or if their background check practices are found to be inconsistent or weak. Companies may also incur administrative costs in cooperating with GAO data collection. Drivers whose background check details are scrutinized could face increased barriers to employment if the report prompts stricter screening requirements in future legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ride-share passengers and drivers currently lack reliable, standardized information about the true frequency of assaults in these vehicles. Without a federal data baseline, neither Congress nor the public can accurately assess whether existing company safety practices are adequate. A recurring GAO report would create an objective, government-verified record that holds companies accountable and gives lawmakers the evidence they need to craft targeted safety measures if the data warrants it. Supporters also note that the bill is narrowly scoped — it mandates study and reporting, not new regulations — making it a low-cost, high-information step that respects both industry autonomy and the public's right to know.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill, while well-intentioned, may produce limited practical benefit because it stops short of requiring any corrective action. A recurring report without enforcement mechanisms or mandated safety standards could give the appearance of federal oversight without delivering meaningful protection to passengers or drivers. Critics may also contend that ride-share safety is primarily a matter of state and local regulation, and that a federal reporting mandate could be a precursor to broader federal intervention into an area traditionally governed by states — raising Tenth Amendment concerns about the appropriate division of regulatory authority over intrastate transportation services.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate ride-share companies rests primarily on the Commerce Clause, as these platforms operate across state lines and use interstate digital infrastructure. Under Wickard v. Filburn (1942), even activity with indirect effects on interstate commerce can fall within federal reach. However, United States v. Lopez (1995) established that Congress cannot regulate purely local, non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause. Because this bill mandates only a GAO study and report — rather than direct regulation of ride-share operations — it presents minimal Commerce Clause tension. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports Congress's use of the GAO as an investigative arm. Post-Loper Bright (2024) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022) concerns about agency overreach are largely inapplicable here, as the bill does not delegate broad rulemaking authority to an agency.
Checks and balances
This bill modestly strengthens the legislative branch's oversight capacity. By directing the GAO — Congress's investigative agency — to study and report on ride-share safety, Congress gains a formal, recurring information channel about a growing sector of the economy. The executive branch and ride-share companies are not granted new authority; no new regulatory power is delegated to any federal agency. The bill does not shift rulemaking authority and does not constrain judicial review of any agency action.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously directed the GAO to study transportation safety in specific sectors, including the 2012 MAP-21 Act, which required safety data collection for motorcoach and bus operators. Targeted reporting mandates focused on emerging transportation industries follow a similar pattern of information-gathering preceding potential regulation.