March 11, 2026 · Business Affairs & Labor · 35,500 words · 14 speakers · 354 segments
The House Business Affairs and Labor Committee will come to order. Oh, wait. I've got to start this again. Now, the House Business and Labor Committee will come to order. Ms. Jawara, please call the roll.
Representative Brooks. Present.
English. Excused.
Gonzalez. Good morning.
Healthy. Excused.
Leader. Okay, come. Yeah. Present.
Mabry. Excused.
Marshall. Excused.
Morrow. Excused.
Richardson. Here.
Ryden. Here. Sukla. Yes. Bricks. Present.
And Mr. Chair. Here. So today we will hear, starting first with House Bill 26-1091, sponsors, please take it away.
Thank you. I was going to hand out some fact sheets.
Rep. Leder, would you like to go first?
Yes. I have some fact sheets here.
If you can bring those to Mr. Wara, we will distribute. Thank you. Some of you may have already received them.
So thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, colleagues. I'm here to present House Bill 1091. concerning data privacy protections relating to homeowners insurance transactions. So in 2021, we passed the Colorado Privacy Act, CPA. We did this with the understanding that Colorado consumers regarding their privacy as a right. Additionally, and that was 21-190, and then they updated it 24-041. So additionally, the legislature recognized that ongoing advances in technology have produced exponential growth in the volume of personal data being generated. Collected, stored, and analyzed, these advance presents both a problem and a potential peril. So House Bill 1091 works to fill in a gap for homeowners. This bill was brought to me from a consumer perspective and from the perspective of constituents in my district. When a Coloradan buys a home, they have no real choice about whether to get homeowners insurance. Their lender often requires it. That lack of bargaining power means insurance companies have been able to collect enormous amounts of our personal data and do largely whatever they want with it while presenting consumers with privacy notices that are confusing, incomplete, and left open-ended for the use of your information. So here's what that means in practice for Colorado homeowners. First, you can ask to see the data and ensure holds on you and make corrections to see if it's wrong or request its deletion when it's no longer needed. Page 15, lines 9 through 21. And critically, exercising those rights cannot be used against you. Let me repeat that. And critically, exercising those rights cannot be used against you. Insurers are prohibited from raising your rates denying your coverage or penalizing you in any way because you chose to protect your privacy That will be page 32 lines 25 and page 33 lines 1 Insurers are also required to annually review what data they're holding and destroy unneeded data within 90 days. and consent must be given before data is processed outside the United States. We have made some exceptions for that with concerns from the insurance company. You'll see an amendment. You can read that on page 29, lines 20 through 24, and page 18, lines 15 through 20. So I will now pass this over to my colleague from Arapahoe County to address the additional provisions. Thank you.
Chairwoman Ricks, before we start, may the record reflect that we are now joined by Representative Kelty and Representative Marshall.
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
And thank you, committee members. I'm proud to be here with my co-prime on this bill, rep leader. The bill also is going to address a serious fairness problem in underwriting. If an insurer denies or limits your coverage, this bill requires them to tell you exactly why in writing. Insurers also cannot deny coverage based on a prior owner's loss history. Data that was simply recycled from other insurers without independent verification. A previous denial without examining its underlying basis or the fact that you asked a question about your coverage that was never turned into a claim. Enforcement here has two tracks. The insurance commissioner gains authority to investigate violations and assess penalties, and consumers themselves can take insurers to court individually or as a class. The effective date is January 1, 2028, so it gives them time to adjust, giving the industry time to update its systems and contracts. The House Bill 1091 is built on a decade of data breaches, and now we have an opportunity to put Colorado homeowners in control of their own data. It does that through a straightforward principle. Your personal information exists to get you insured not to be sold, shared, or monetized without your knowledge. So I'm going to rest there, and we'll take questions from the committee.
Committee members, any questions for our sponsors?
Representative Sucla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So thank you, Representative Leader, for showing me your insurance, homeowner's insurance bill, and where it showed that they could sell your medical data and some of your other stuff. I've got to tell you, I don't want anybody selling my data. So I'm going to be a yes on your bill today unless those people in the back convince me otherwise. Thank you.
May the record reflect that we are joined by Representative English.
Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sponsors, I appreciate the intent behind this bill. My question for you is, do you believe compliance costs will, do you know how the compliance costs will increase for insurance companies? And if so, would those costs be passed on consumers to higher premiums?
I can't guarantee what they will do, but it does state in the bill. I read it earlier that they cannot penalize you as on page 32, lines 25 through 27,
critically exercising those rights cannot be used against you Insurers are prohibited from raising your rates denying your coverage or penalizing you in any way because you chose to protect your privacy Representative Brooks.
Chair, thank you. I believe that my colleague might have read off of my sheet and knows exactly what question I wanted to ask. I'm good. Thank you.
Thank you for pushing him under the bus.
Correct.
Your words, not mine, but I appreciate your efforts. Committee members, anyone else? I will take this opportunity then to dialogue briefly. Sponsors, I really respect what you are trying to do, but I have serious concerns. Can you, it is my understanding that insurance companies use this data for many purposes. So for example, to purchase reinsurance. and take, for example, the scenario in which there's a wildfire that ensures it's very common practice for them to purchase insurance for themselves because they may not have the capital outliers to actually cover those losses. In that process of acquiring or purchasing reinsurance, they must use underlying consumer data to facilitate the underwriting process. Can you please help me understand how this bill does not affect that process? Because I have serious concerns. if we're making it harder to do underwriting, then we will look a lot like California, where all the major insurers just don't write policies there. Can you talk about that?
Representative leader. We're dialoguing, so you can... Okay, perfect. So in response to that, Britta is bringing over an amendment that she will be presenting to the committee. And additionally, do not pass out L01. Britta just texted me and told me she has got another there was some conforming amendment on L01 so she's creating L04 to replace this so don't hand it out too late.
I already did. Just saw the text.
But in reference to your question you will see an amendment that takes out the underlying piece of it that you're addressing. And I have the verbiage and I don't know where I put it.
Sure.
I just want to add that reinsurance for the purposes of providing homeowner's insurance is appropriate for the scope of the bill, because that is why the data was given in the first place, so that they're able to insure homeowners. We are not in any ways trying to impede the progress of insurance companies in insuring homeowners. It's very important to have insurance coverage. That's why we have exempted the fare plan. We have accepted amendments from the banks, because they know that they can be the point of last insurance coverage for some of their customers. who may not qualify otherwise. So as long as it is for the purposes of insuring customers for homeowners insurance, it's good. If it's unauthorized sales of this to make money and arbitrarily, that is an issue, and that's what we're trying to address in this bill.
Sponsors, I'm also aware there's at least two federal laws that provide similar protections to what you're trying to achieve here. So, for example, the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act does talk about a lot of ways in which you have to protect your data. It actually requires that you cannot give data away for free, which may explain why some of this data is being sold. But it does provide a lot of protections. I think the other one is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. These would all apply to insurance companies. My additional concern is that what we are doing here would essentially create some conflict with federal law which I believe would preempt any state action in this space and create some uncertainty and issues Again my overriding concern is I want to make sure because I hear from my district quite a bit that insurance for both homes and cars is frankly too expensive. And I have serious concerns that this bill makes that problem worse. It can help relieve me of that fear.
Yes. So I'm glad you brought up the Graham Blighty Act. That is exactly why we are exempting the banks, because they do comply with that act. And if you read the amendment that we're going to bring, it talks specifically to that act and that they are exempt to do the work that they need to do for consumers.
And I'll push back just ever so slightly. I am also aware that that act does apply to financial institutions, but it also applies to insurers, especially who insurers who also offer financial services. So what would your amendment do in that space?
L-002 exempts them. You'll see L-002.
It exempts insurance companies?
The obligation of this section is does not apply FDIC-insured institutions or affiliates of FDIC-insured institutions that are subject to the Graham Leach-Blyly Act. 15 U.S.C., Section 6801, ETSQ. And also it's used in the subsection 3E. The FDIC means the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations or its successors. These are the language that they gave us that they wanted to make sure that it didn't apply to this. And so we accepted their amendment.
Well, hopefully the drafters here can ask that question. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I heard is Amendment 1, was it essentially exclude insurance companies from this bill, especially if they're offering financial services?
No, no, no, no. Absolutely not. Amendment 1 removes the fair plan. The fair plan is that the insurers are the providers of last resort. And it also removes the surplus lines like if you want to, like Baptiste wants to insure his hands, it exempts them as well.
I take it you're talking about specialty lines of insurance that you would get for specific...
Yes, the surplus lines of insurance is how it's...
Committee members, I've taken a lot of time. Does anybody else want to ask any questions? Between bites maybe? No? Nothing? Okay. Thank you. We'll call up our witnesses. Rep leader, go ahead.
Please see Anaya Robinson with the ACLU is unable to be here because of the change, so please see his testimony. It's in writing. He sent it in.
All right, we'll first have our first panel of witnesses against. If I can call Ted Trimpa, Parker White, Dan Giblan, and Kristen Abbott. If you are in the room, please come forward. All right, Ms. Abbott, all due apologies, but we do give preference to people who are here in person, so we will start with my left. Mr. Jubland, please state your full name and who you represent, and you have three minutes to give your testimony.
Hi, thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Dan Jublan. I'm here representing Ramiya, the Rocky Mountain Insurance Association, testifying in opposition of House Bill 1091, the Rocky Mountain Insurance Organization. Our association represents roughly 85% of the Colorado homeowners insurance market. While we understand this bill is well intended, our organization does have deep concerns about the bill's potential, far-reaching impact on the ability for insurance agents and companies to conduct business in Colorado, and how those consequences will affect the consumers, from increased premiums and insurance availability challenges to the recreation of endless litigation spiral that could destabilize the state homeowners insurance market. HB 91 is based on the assumption that the agents and insurance companies can currently sell personal information and are not highly regulated already by state and federal personal protection laws that this bill would conflict with. One area also we are very concerned with is the disclosure piece. The disclosure requires a listing of all possible public information resources used to collect data. This list is truly endless. For example, every counter accessory site, every news outlet, the results, any Google search, virtually impossible to comply with. House Bill 91 would upend the way today we do insurance transactions and businesses handled, and the privacy protection is intended to protect, but would in fact hurt Colorado homeowners with these onerous requirements that would put the state in conflict with state and national personal privacy standards. For that reason, we oppose House Bill 1091. Thank you for your time.
Thanks, Mr. Giplein. Please hold for questions. Mr. White, three minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Parker White. I serve as the director of the Colorado Competitive Council, and we are here today in opposition of House Bill 26-1091. At its core, this bill represents a significant and unnecessary interference in the business of insurance. Insurance functions because companies are able to evaluate and price risk through underwriting, and that process requires the sharing of information with underwriters and reinsurers. HB 26-1091 threatens to disrupt those basic operations by creating new restrictions and liabilities around how that information is handled. This bill would also regulate surplus line insurers for the first time in Colorado. These companies typically provide coverage in higher risk or specialty markets and often do not regularly operate here. Imposing new regulatory burdens will likely cause some of these insurers to either leave or limit their presence here in Colorado. At a time when homeowners are already facing challenges finding coverage, that should be a concern to everybody on this committee. In addition, the bill interferes with underwriting decisions by effectively requiring insurers to justify declining to write a homeowner's policy. Underwriting judgment is the core function of insurance companies. and second-guessing those decisions discourages insurers from participating in an already difficult market. Finally, the bill creates complex reporting requirements and imposes a $3,000 fine for each reporting failure. It even allows homeowners to seducate a third party to receive those reports, creating significant exposure to litigation over technical violations. It's important to remember there is no requirement for insurance and insurers to do business here in Colorado. We live in a 50-state union, and insurers, just like any business, are free to do business or to not do business in any given state. When states push the market too far, companies can and do leave. We've already seen this play out in parts of states like California, where insurers pulled back after being squeezed too hard in the name of affordability. For these reasons C3 respectfully urges a no vote on HB 26 Thank you for your time and consideration Mr Wright thank you very much Please hold for questions Mr Trimpa your turn Thank you Mr Chair Ted Trimpa on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
we're here in opposition of 1090. Four reasons for the opposition. The first is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is currently looking at this exact issue. And Mike Conway, our insurance commissioner, is very involved in this process. They hope to have something within the year. So the second reason is if you were to pass 1090, Colorado data privacy laws would be different than what is in other states. And that's the reason why NAIC is looking at it to see if there's one way that you could address this state by state. The third reason is you will now have a dual privacy network. You have the Colorado Privacy Act covering insurance that has a definition of personal data elsewhere in the statutes. and existing statutes have requirements for data privacy notices and data use in insurance. And finally, both the scope of the bill itself and definitions like personal data are overly broad and create compliance and operational challenges from a practical standpoint. So for those four reasons, NAMIC asks that you vote no on 1090. Thank you.
All right, Ms. Abbott. Thank you for waiting. It is your turn.
You have three minutes.
Please state your name and who you represent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kristen Abbott. I'm the Senior Director and Council of Cyber and Privacy Issues at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, representing 1,200 insurers that have customers in every community in Colorado. I'm here in opposition to HB 1091. Colorado property and casualty insurers already operate under a strong layered privacy framework. At the federal level, the GLBA strictly regulates the sharing of non-public personal financial information and requires clear privacy notices and meaningful opt-out rights. The FCRA adds additional protections governing underwriting, affiliate sharing, and adverse action notices. Colorado has implemented this national framework through adoption of the NAIC privacy model and enactment of the Colorado Privacy Act, which deliberately avoids conflict with GLBA-regulated data. Consumers today receive clear notices, meaningful opt-out rights, and strong safeguards. Insurers are also among the most heavily examined and regulated industries, and unlike parts of the tech sector, insurers are not the source of large-scale privacy scandals. HB 1091 would not improve consumer understanding of privacy rights. It would make them more confusing. Across the country, the growing patchwork of privacy laws is already creating inconsistent standards for consumers and significant compliance challenges for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. This bill would add to that patchwork by creating homeowner specific privacy rules. Insurers design privacy programs to be uniform so consumers receive clear and consistent information. A line specific mandate means the same Colorado consumer could receive different privacy notices, rights, and processes from the same company depending solely on the insurance product they purchase. That fragmentation does not improve privacy protections. It makes them harder for consumers to understand and use. The bill also creates serious operational and retroactive problems. It extends obligations to former insureds whose data may have been collected years ago under lawful privacy policies. It requires opt-in consent for activities that have and the data that we have been working on is long operated under a nationally recognized opt-out framework. It also mandates annual data element level retention reviews and 90 deletion requirements that are technologically infeasible in complex legacy systems At the same time the NEIC is actively modernizing their privacy rules to develop a uniform, updated insurance privacy framework that can be adopted across the states. Moving forward with an outlier regime before that work is complete risks creating confusion and unnecessary costs without delivering meaningful new protections. Consumers in Colorado are already protected by strong laws and regulations. This bill adds complexity and consistency and cost without providing real additional benefits. For those reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1091. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Committee members,
I see Representative Gonzalez has a question. Yes, permission to dialogue briefly with Ms. Abbott.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Abbott, the bill includes formally insured individuals in the
definition of consumer. Can you explain what challenges that creates in practice?
Yes. So this is one of the most significant operational concerns that we have. Under the
bill, insurers could be required to obtain opt-in consent from individuals who may have had homeowners policies many years ago and with whom the insurer no longer has any relationship. In many cases, that data was collected and used under privacy policies that were fully compliant with the law at that time. So applying the new requirement retroactively creates a situation where companies would be expected to track down former customers who may have moved, changed contact information, or otherwise cannot reasonably be reached. Most privacy frameworks, including the GLBA and the Colorado Privacy Act, are designed to apply prospectively, tied to an ongoing customer relationship. Moving away from that model would create a lot of compliance challenges, and it wouldn't really provide meaningful additional privacy protections for those consumers. Thank you. And then the bill
also requires opt-in consent for certain use of personal data. How would that affect normal
insurance operations? Yeah, so insurance companies interact with consumers in many ways that don't involve like a traditional login or direct identity verification. So for example, when someone visits a website to get a quick quote or receive information about available insurance products, An opt-in model requires companies to identify and authenticate individuals before they can even provide certain information or services, and that can create significant friction for those consumers looking for quick access to information. The current opt-out framework under GLBA strikes a balance by providing clear notice and the ability for consumers to say no, but it still allows those companies to operate efficiently. Moving to a strict opt-in approach would make homeowners insurance an outlier compared to other financial services and even most state privacy laws. And it could limit the ability of insurers to communicate helpful information about coverage options and potential savings.
Thank you. And then lastly, you mentioned the NAIC is already working on this issue. Can you explain what that effort involves?
Sure. So the NAIC is currently working to modernize its insurance privacy model law. That effort involves insurance regulators from across the country, including Colorado, working together with stakeholders to update the framework to reflect modern data practices while maintaining strong consumer protections. The draft revisions focus on clarifying and expanding consumer options such as access, correction, and deletion, updating consent and notification requirements, and strengthening third-party data protections while aligning with certain privacy expectations across the state. The effort is aimed at producing a more uniform and contemporary insurance privacy framework that states can all adopt rather than leaving insurers to navigate an increasingly inconsistent patchwork of requirements COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPRESENTATIVE KELTE THANK YOU MR CHAIR
AND MY QUESTION IS FOR MS. ABBOTT AS WELL. YOU MENTIONED THAT OPT IN, OPT OUT THING. AS A CONSUMER, AM I ALLOWED, OR IF I ASK TO BE OPT OUT OF MY insurance to be sold or shared to an outside third-party company, must that insurance company comply with everything? If not, what is it that they don't comply with? And then when asked to see what data they have on me that they are sharing, what's their obligation to show me that data?
Ms. Abbott.
So sure. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Yes. Insurers absolutely comply with the privacy laws today. They are following those laws and where opt out is allowed. They are complying with that. I'm not sure beyond that what you would want to know, because, you know, we are applying, complying with the laws as they are written. And so if you have the opportunity to opt out and you request that opt out, then we would have followed that as well. If you want to clarify the question, that might be helpful if you need more information.
Permission to dialing. Just quickly.
We have five minutes left. I want you to ask a question.
We'll come back.
Unfortunately, I have to call your time.
So one question. So my question for her was basically, what data is, if I opt out, what are they do they have to opt out everything or just part of it and then when asked to see what data they have on me that they are sharing what's their obligation to show me that information
miss abbott yeah so um if we're just looking at the glba um that would mandate um you would not be allowed to share your personal information with non-affiliated parties um you would require notice it would require some opt-out requirements so it really would just depend on the different laws that are applying in that instance I cannot tell you exactly each item I'm happy to go back and research more into this so that I can give you exact answers to that question but you would be allowed to opt
out of what you've asked to opt out of any other committee members with questions Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was listening, this is a question for, I think, Ms. Abbott, maybe Mr. Giblan.
But how does this impact the functioning of the state's fair plan and those that can't get insurance on the private market? Ms. Abbott?
I honestly cannot answer that in detail. I understand that there is an amendment with the fair plan. I have yet to see that amendment, so I would like to look at that before I would give you a response. I'm not sure if my fellow panelists have more to say on that.
Panelists? Mr. Jiglan?
Thank you for the question. I don't know if this is the answer, but I think it is important to remember that the fair plan is funded by the insurance companies directly, by assessments all the time. So anything that affects the fair plan is going to have at least an indirect result on the fair.
market as well. Thank you. Representative Sucla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have a home insurance plan here in front of me, and it's the U.S. privacy notice. I don't want to say the insurance company, but it says the type of personal information we collect and share depends on the product or service you have with us. This information can include social security number, payment history, insurance claim history, which I understand, and medical information and credit scores. So why would you share my medical information for a home insurance plan?
I can answer the question.
Mr. Giblan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. I can say only from personal experience I was in distribution for 26 years as an agent and working with agents I wasn't even aware that was in the policy frankly I can honestly tell you that I've never known that to be shared and I think it would have to be something to do if they wanted medical information would probably have to be with a medical policy it's like the claims history goes with the house It's like if you buy a car, it costs more to insure the chair's 2026 Porsche than it does my 2020 Volkswagen because the property is an important piece of what's being insured. As far as the other thing, I can't answer that directly. I can honestly tell you in my years in the business since 1985, I've never known medical insurance claims to be shared unless it certainly wasn't in a homeowner's insurance market.
Maybe I can just ask one. Would a valid use of that information be if the homeowner had maybe a disability and required additional modifications to the home?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
Very possibly if they need to put ramps or if there's modifications to the home. Representative Sucla.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So another one, if I went down, it says that you also can share with other financial companies. Maybe you can explain to me why you would be sharing my data with other financial companies with my homeowner. This is a homeowner policy.
Ms. Abbott, Mr. Jiblan.
Ms. Abbott.
I can jump in. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so that could be a situation where we have joint marketing agreements between a company and maybe a bank. A lot of times this could apply in credit unions. They have relationships where you have a trusted partner and you joint market across those trusted partners and customers of them come to expect that. They want to know what the trusted partner of their of their bank is or of their insurance company is when they're looking for other resources and options. So really, you know, sharing when we are sharing things, we are doing this under the laws like GLBA, FICRA, the NEIC models, and we're tightly restricted in how we can use and share that information. And so in that situation, it would be allowable.
Thank you. And that is all the time we have for this panel. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We'll call up the next panel in support of the bill. So is Mr. Brandt in the room? Is Mr. Brandt online? All right Well at this point we call up the drafter Ms Darling Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on this bill who has not signed it If so, please raise your hand and come forward. I'm seeing some very excited people out there. Nobody wants to talk about insurance? Okay. Ms. Darling, please come up. No. We should be? The witness is done. OK. Well, if you just come up, we'll proceed. So the witnesses phase is closed. Sponsors, can you come back up, please?
Bill Sponsors, do we have any amendments? Yes.
We switched the time, so that's probably why.
Representative Leader? Thank you.
Yeah, the witnesses probably didn't realize you switched the time. That's what happened to two of them already.
Amendment L001, as I told you, pull that, and L004 is going to replace that, that, so I move L... First, I'm going to move L002.
So hold one second. Do we have L...
Rep. Leader, we only have L003 and 4.
Oh, you gave us a first set.
Okay.
Keep up with the pace there, Camacho. All right. All right. So we have rep leaders moving L-001, seconded by Representative Brooks.
I'm moving L-002. L-002 and seconded by Representative Brooks.
Can you please explain L-002?
This is the one that the bankers requested that exempts them from the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act. So the obligation is this, it doesn't apply to the FDIC-insured institutions or affiliates of the FDIC-insured institutions that are subject to Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.
Committee members, do we have any questions about this amendment? Seeing none, do we have any objections to this amendment? Seeing none, amendment L-002 passes. Sponsors, do you have any more amendments?
Yes, we have. L-003.
All right.
Can you please move your amendment? I move L-003 to House Bill 1091.
Second.
House Bill L-003 has been moved and seconded by Madam Chair.
Rep. Leader, please explain amendment L-003.
This is the amendment you requested in regards to your concerns, Chair Camacho. So it says nothing in this section precludes sharing, selling, or disseminating personal data for the purpose of underwriting a homeowner's insurance policy, issuing reinsurance, or assessing risk for a homeowner's insurance policy. Any questions about this amendment?
Seeing none, is there any objection to this amendment? Also seeing none, amendment L003 has passed. Sponsors, any more amendments?
Rep Leader L004 replaces the L that you received earlier So this changes the definition I move L to 1091 Second.
Amendment L-004 has been moved and seconded by Madam Chair. Rep. Leader.
So this amendment changes the definitions of license to, and it removes the fair plan. This is the one that exempts the Fair Plan Act, so the providers of last resort. We're not here to make homeowners not be able to get insurance. It's about we're tired of people taking our data and do what they want with it. And it also removes the surplus lines. Like I said earlier, if John Baptiste wants to insure his hands, go for it. This is what this does is it removes the surplus lines, and it makes the conforming amendments.
All right. Committee members, any questions about this amendment? Are there any objections to this amendment? All right. Amendment L004 passes. Committee members, do you have any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Who would like to go first? Representative Leader.
Thank you. I just want to make a couple points to what was said earlier. So the bill explicitly carves out, this is in regards to the GLBA, it explicitly carves out depository institution affiliates already subject to the GLBA. Vermont and California have maintained identical structures for over two decades without successful challenges. Vermont adopted an opt-in consent for insurance regulation IH2001-01 and was revised in 2023, more than 20 years ago. And to my knowledge, no one has successfully challenged the Vermont opt-in. Also, I'm just going to go ahead for my closing remarks. So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Official chair for joining me on this bill. I'm still official for this bill only.
Define.
So under House Bill 261091, if an insurer wants to use your data for anything beyond processing your policy, they have to ask first and get your explicit affirmative consent. This is a consumer first standard in modern privacy protection. You heard the questions my colleague Sukla asked you. That is a real homeowner's insurance policy. And it puts right on there what they can and cannot sell of your information. Clearly, it states for marketing purposes, define marketing to offer our products and services to you. Yes, they sell that. Can you limit the sharing? No, you cannot. And why anybody needs to know my medical is absolutely absurd. That should be a HIPAA violation. And for joint marketing with other financial companies, yes, they can sell that. Can you limit your sharing? No, you cannot. It's right in here in black and white. There's as well as personal information, that types of personal information that they collect and share depend on the product or services you have with us includes social security numbers, payment history, insurance claim history, I can almost understand that one, medical information right there no why It no reason for it Account transactions and credit scores Except for in these states And when I read that, I wanted Colorado to be an except for in these states. And that's Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont. See, I will say constituents' bills are the hardest to pass because my constituents don't have teams and teams of lobbyists. And they have, on an average, three to six lobbyists per company. All my constituents have is me as their representative. Just like your constituents have you to protect them and their data privacy. So I ask for a yes vote.
Madam Chair. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So look, this bill is about making standards that grant the consumers the power to control how their homeowner's insurance data is used and hold the insurance and processors responsible for mishandling the consumer data and necessary steps that must be taken to protect the state's homeowners, the consumers, and ultimately all Coloradans. there's nothing wrong with us having more autonomy and asking questions to insurance companies about why they're being denied an insurance claim. That gives the homeowners here or consumers in Colorado the right to ask that question and to ensure that their data is not used in an unauthorized manner. We asked for a yes vote today. And also, there's also been a lot of data breaches when it comes to insurance companies. approximately 28% of the top 150 insurance companies have experienced a data breach, according to the 2025 industry reports. This rate is significantly higher than other critical sectors like energy due to high value of personal and financial data insurance hold. So this information that they have is high value. If somebody gets hold of your information, they can do a lot of nefarious things with it. Key details regarding these incidents include the recent target breaches. Major providers like Alliance Life, Aflac, Philadelphia Insurance, and Area Insurance have reported breaches or network disruptions within the last year. And there's a lot of third-party risk. Roughly 59% of breaches in the insurance sector are caused by vulnerabilities in third-party software of vendors rather than the carrier's own systems. And a lot of common data is stolen. Compromised records frequently include the Social Security numbers, bank account details, home addresses, and it's all been used for identity theft and spear phishing. So, Coloradans, let's protect Coloradans' data. I think that's all of our data, and our consumers deserve the protection, and that's why we're here is to protect Colorado. Please vote yes.
Committee members, any closing remarks? Representative Brooks.
Thank you, Chair. I empathize with the statements that were made as far as the lift when it comes to carrying a constituent bill. I get that. And it's fair. You're pulling all the weight. However, I think that there's a little bit in that is kind of part of my concern is that the constituent bill I have found even my own experience are sometimes not the most elegant because there's a lot more that needs to be considered in the overall piece and the downstream impacts, and then that's where we come in, right? That's where, as legislators, we try to pull back a little bit from what we're hearing as an on-the-street need or an on-the-street desire or a concern and say, yeah, get that. Protecting data and protecting privacy, absolutely. on board, right? But then we look at some of the downstream effects of what does this do to an industry that is already very challenged and already is really having a detrimental impact to homeowners. Just last night, I sat in a committee and we talked about how do we keep people from losing their homes. And an idea was brought forward that was through a different mechanism, not an insurance mechanism, but I made a point at the time that the insurance mechanism was very much a piece of this and we have to consider that as well that if we are going to do anything that is going to net effect increase or put more pressure on insurer insurer companies to possibly leave the state or to also then increase rates that pass along to the consumers that is something we really need to take into consideration when we are talking about an affordability crisis when we're talking about all of these other things a home housing crisis and trying to keep people in their homes. It's all part of this mix. I worry about that. And I worry about, especially in my community, in my district, people that are on fixed incomes, the downstream effect of what that might have. And that's a cost I'm not exactly sure that if they were to put on a scale to say, are there ways to be able to protect my privacy while I can keep my home and make sure that I'm staying where I'm at at a fixed income without having to worry about yet again another insurance increase, especially in at-risk areas. I think there's a lot there to consider and enough to consider that I can't support this bill at this time. That's all of you in now.
Representative Ryden.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also really appreciate the intent of this and I think there has been a lot of breaches and whatnot that is certainly very alarming. There, of course, is a cost. There's an opportunity cost, I think, to anything, especially in terms of compliance with added regulations. So the cost of homeowners insurance just keeps going up and up and up, and I worry about things that keep contributing to that. So I'm respectful now today, but I do appreciate your intent.
Representative Kelsey.
I want to thank you both as well as bringing this up. As we've seen, there's a lot of stuff going on with insurance where a lot of consumers feel like they are powerless, and I understand that. I listed my constituents as well. I was there, I'm not there, I'm there, I'm not there. So I'm kind of going back and forth on this one here, and I'm trying to put myself into where I stand. You know, I don't like data collection, period, but in certain instances there needs to be some sort of data collection. I didn't see it in the bill, so maybe you can help me later on, but I didn't see the part that I worry about. where certain types of data can be used for discounts, benefits, being able to cut your insurance down because you've been a good consumer, a good buyer, and that. And I don't want all the data. It just says it's all gone in 90 days. I don't like that part because I want to be able to control what they can see and what they use about me I didn get the answer to that Hopefully I will because I not going to stop on that one But and then it said that you it was mentioned that it was based off of a California model Now if we know anything about California, that's not something we should probably model ourselves after, even though we try very hard sometimes. Well, we don't, but it does sometimes. So that's something we should probably get away from. But, you know, I didn't get a lot of the answers. but then there's other things that I have concerns with. So I'm going to, for today, be a no. But I would like to discuss it further, only because I do see some value in being able to control your data and being able to say, hey, I don't want this shared, I'm okay with that, you know, something like that. But to have a blanket sharing, I'm not good with that, but then also I'm not good with the blanket deletion. So I'm conflicted. But today, respectfully, I'll be a no. but I would like to have more conversation.
Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate the issue and what you're trying to resolve here. I'm a little concerned, especially after L002, and doing a little look and carving out the FDIC banks that are subject to Graham Leach Blaley, I think was the right thing to do, but that act does apply to credit unions. It applies to insurance companies. It pretty much applies to everybody that touches money and touches transactions of that sort, and they do have privacy and security rules. I think the fact that the Commission is also looking at how to best address this, I'm a no today, but I do want to look more at how that, carving out just one set of institutions that's under that act, would affect things.
Representative Marshall.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was a bit conflicted, too, because I understand the intent, but it's far more than just even data privacy. I'm reading straight from the summary of the bill. the bill prohibits a licensee from denying insurance based solely on the loss history of the previous owner of the property or based solely on personal data received from a processor whose primary source of information is licensees without the licensee obtaining further information that supports the adverse decision. That is directly interfering with the underwriting process because if you have a property that is totally uninsurable and you're not allowed to share that data, that's a huge problem. You know, so I just see too many unintended consequences right now that I can't get over in my own head. So I'm going to have to be a no today.
Representative Morrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do want to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this bill. I know the intent is absolutely great, and I agree with the intent 100%. 100%, as I think a lot of us have been doing over the last couple of years, is looking into ways we can help our constituents have lower insurance premiums. I know they're out of control for many different reasons in the state of Colorado. But since dabbling my toe and reading more and trying to see what I can do to lower insurance costs, I'm a respectful no today just because the more I learn about the insurance company and what they take to lower their prices or hopefully not raise them at least. I just need to be a no on this bill today because I do believe that will be counterintuitive to the goals that I been trying to reach Thank you Representative Sucla Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So what an interesting thing.
I looked it up, so our home insurance has raised, it's been rising 58% to 130% in the last four years. This is a study done by Colorado State University. So what that tells me, and my home insurance did as well, and I haven't filed any claims. We don't have no health. In fact, we don't have any moisture where I live, so they don't ever have to worry about health damage where I live. I guess what this is trying to tell me is how much my data is really worth. So if this is talking about data and it keeps raising, and the argument here is, well, if we do this, then it's really going to raise my rates. Well, my rates have already raised 130%. And if my data is really worth that much money, I want to sell my data. It's my data. I own myself, and I'm going to sell it. So I can already count being an auctioneer, but I'm going to vote yes for you today.
Any other comments from committee members? So I will close. Sponsors, I greatly appreciate you bringing this bill and I share your concern about data. I think what I will be a no today and here's why. Lots of my constituents, I was actually surprised by how much pushback and how much concern I have heard over the last year about rising homeowner rates. I think in my community alone, because we do live in an area prone to hail, we have seen people's deductibles become 20% of the replacement of a roof, and that is simply out of reach for a lot of people. And I have a lot of concern that this bill will make it harder to write that insurance because of the underwriting process, because unfortunately data is how insurance is driven. And if they can't make smart decisions about insuring a property, I suspect that they just won't. And for me, that means a lost opportunity for a working person or a family in my community because they can no longer get insurance for a home they would like to purchase or a new condo or whatever it is. So for that reason, I will be a no. But I do greatly respect that you brought this and raised this issue because I think it does need our attention. So thank you. All right. So an appropriate motion would be to move House Bill 1091 to the Committee on Appropriations.
I move House Bill 1091 on the Committee of Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second. I think what you meant, Rep.
Leader, is that you move House Bill 1091 as amended.
Okay. To the Committee on Appropriations, second by Madam Chair. Mr. R.R., please call the roll.
Representative Brooks.
No.
English. Yes. Gonzalez. No.
Elty. No. Leader. Yes. Mabry. Yes.
Marshall. No. Morrow. No. Richardson.
No. Today. Bryden. Kindly no. Sucla.
Yes. Ricks. Yes. And Mr. Chair.
No. That fails on a vote of 5 to 8. An appropriate motion would be...
I move to postpone indefinitely House Bill 1091 as amended with reverse roll call
That's a proper motion, seconded by Representative Raiden. Any objection? Yes.
With an objection, Ms. Joara?
That's it? Okay. There you go. All right, well, I have to go for it. 1091 is PI'd. All right. Can we have our bill sponsors come up for House Bill 1273? You have to do a reverse order and go back and you take the vote. No. She objected. Rick's objected. You have to take the roll call vote. You have to take the roll call vote.
Okay.
I will hold off on that.
Ms. Joarrow, please call the roll.
I withdraw that. We will go in recess. Thank you. The Business and Labor Committee will come back to order. Representative Marshall.
I move to postpone indefinitely House Bill 1091 as amended.
That is a proper motion.
Representative Gonzalez, Ms. Jamara, please call the roll. Representative Brooks.
This motion is to postpone indefinitely.
English
No
Gonzales
Yes
Kelty
Yes
Leader
Mabry
Excused
Oh, sorry, delay that
Say pass Representative Mabry
No
Marshall
Yes
Morrow. Yes. Richardson. Yes.
Raiden. Yes. Sukla.
Kamacho. Yes.
No.
And Madam Chair. No.
On a 9-4 pass. That motion passes on a vote of 9-4. Still P.I. Still P.I. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair? Yes. I will be right back. I'll be right back. I'm going to go right to this. Thank you. Before us, we have our two bill sponsors.
Who wants to go first?
Representative Williford. It's okay. I forget names, too. Can we just wait a moment while everybody gets their handouts? Sure. Okay. Thank you.
Good afternoon, committee. I think it's afternoon. Thank you all so much for your attention while we introduce House Bill 1273. I'm delighted to be here with my co-prime sponsor and colleague in all of the fun work, Representative Froelich. We decided to try something a little bit different coming to the business committee. We decided we were going to put the fun back in the business committee. So we wanted to start off our build presentation with a little bit of trivia today, which is why we made you all a trivia card so you can keep track of your answers and all of the points that you're winning. So let's play. The first question that we have is, and there's no multiple choice. You've got to use your brain here. I believe in you all. So the first question is, in 2025, Uber generated more than $50 billion in revenue. How many Uber drivers receive employer-provided benefits like health insurance or paid sick leave? Go ahead, write down your answers.
Love the call out from Representative Ryden. I heard 20%.
The answer is zero. Uber classifies drivers and Lyft, too, as independent contractors rather than employees, so they get zero benefits. Here comes question number two. Uber and Lyft spent heavily to influence labor laws affecting drivers. How much did they spend on the California ballot initiative about driver classification? Think big. unfortunately fortunately not a billion dollars but if you were guessing more than two million dollars or two hundred million dollars you were right two hundred million dollars against driver classification making it the most expensive ballot measure campaign in the United States history question number three while Uber and Lyft generated billions in revenue, what employment status do the companies assign drivers? Independent contractor. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the win. Independent contractors, which means companies generally do not provide minimum wage guarantees over time, unemployment insurance, again, or any benefits Now this one a multi question but I know you can do it Question number Number four what do drivers have to be able to have in order to drive on a rideshare platform and what is covered by a rideshare company
Yes, a driver's license.
That is valid and important.
Insurance.
Insurance, yep, all important.
A nice car.
A nice car, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So a vehicle that's not older than 15 years. What else? A smartphone with a data plan. So you probably pay monthly for the smartphone. You also need to have enough phone storage. Probably going to need a phone charger. How do you get your car to move around? Oh, that's right. You need gas or you need somewhere to charge your vehicle, which you still have to pay for. You also have to pay for your own vehicle maintenance and your own vehicle cleaning. And what does the rideshare company cover for you as a driver? Nothing. All right. Last question. This one might take you back to elementary school or middle school. You might need a pen and your calculator. But we're going to do it. Question number five. You log in to drive, and it takes you, and you take a ride that is one-way 40.19 miles. There are a couple other handouts in your packet that I gave you. So if you look at this one right here, this ride share receipt, you're going to need it. Okay, so you log in, you take a ride that's one-way 40.19 miles. It takes you roughly an hour between pick-up and drop-off. The rider pays $92.93. Uber, their cut is $31.32. Then you have to pay the insurance and the fees, which are $12.78. And then there is a $4.65 customer promo. The IRS mileage reimbursement rate, this is typically what is nationally recognized around the cost of wear and tear on a vehicle or gas. That IRS mileage reimbursement this year is 72 cents. So how much after the wear and tear did you actually make in that one hour? If y'all are really good at calculating math and you're very quick, you're going to take your wages, which were $44.18 minus the $29.13 for gas and wear and tear. And that tells us that $15 was the amount that you actually made. But also don't forget this doesn't cover your phone bill or any of the other costs that we just talked about. $15 for an hour of your time and all of that wear and tear on your vehicle. Members, thank you for playing trivia. I have a feeling that you all got five stars. Congratulations. This bill is ultimately about fairness. Right now in Colorado, riders are paying more than ever for rides, but the drivers doing the work are seeing less and less of that money. And in some cases, transportation network companies, or you will hear us call them rideshare companies, are taking 60% to 70% of the fare, leaving drivers to cover gas insurance maintenance and their time with what is left That not innovation That extraction Rideshare companies tell us that drivers are independent contractors but these companies control the information drivers receive about the ride, passengers, and the destination until they achieve a certain rating or have a certain number of rides, and they also control all of the conditions of employment. Companies pay through secret algorithms that drivers can't see, can't negotiate, and cannot challenge. House Bill 1273 sets a simple and clear standard. When you pay for a ride, at least 80% of that fare goes to the driver who actually did the work. No more hidden fees, no more algorithmic shell games, no corporate middleman quietly taking the majority of the money. And let's be clear, this bill will not ban these companies. Drivers received an email using scare tactics yesterday to urge them to contact legislators to kill this bill. The same thing happened last year when Representative Froelich and I bought a rideshare safety bill this session, or last session. These companies don't want to have any regulations, not on safety and not about their profits and certainly not about their drivers. I shared a copy of this email with you. This is your third attachment in your little packet so that you're able to read the language and decide for yourself if it's real. They threatened that this legislation would double the cost of ride share in the state. If it moves forward, it would make ride share unaffordable for millions of Coloradans that depend on it. They argue that giving drivers a greater share of their earnings means that they wouldn't be able to cover the required costs like government insurance, mandated insurance, taxes, local airport fees, and more. And this is without, again, considering operational costs like background checks and safety screenings. As a result, fares for riders would need to increase significantly, making ride share unaffordable. And if far fewer people use Uber, there wouldn't be enough trips to support drivers and keep the platform running. So if you go back to our initial example, that was question number five, on our trivia, and you look at the receipt, you'll see that there's no line item for driver's costs. No line item for mileage reimbursement. And if you actually went through, and if you reviewed that receipt, you would find that drivers actually only make roughly 15% of the fares. The person who is actually doing the work is left with the smallest piece of pie. This bill doesn't stop rideshare companies from making money. It simply says that corporate profits cannot come from squeezing drivers and price gouging riders at the exact same time. And I'll close with this. I received an email from a driver yesterday who was unable to come and testify, and she said, Uber and Lyft have begun their scare tactics to get drivers to oppose this legislation. As a 10-year part-time driver of Uber, I fully support this legislation. I would like to point out that Uber essentially operates as a Ponzi scheme. And in fact, when they switched to up-front pricing, they admitted that shorter rides would pay better than longer rides. In essence, to do this, they keep far more of the longer ride in order to offset the lower prices charged for shorter rides. Consider that and consider what we putting forward in this bill which is actual fairness and common sense When someone gets into a car to drive in Colorado the person behind the wheel should take the majority of the fare It common sense and that's exactly what this bill delivers and we urge an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair and Business and Labor Committee for the opportunity to present House Bill 1273, a bill that tries to ensure fairness for drivers in rideshare fares. As has been explained, rideshare companies do not consider themselves transportation companies, and the drivers are not employees. They are contractors. But I just want to step back a moment and just talk about the whole system and a little bit about the gig worker system. According to Uber, most rideshare drivers work 20 hours a week by Uber's own numbers. Rideshare drivers' supply, therefore, comes from folks working another job. That's all the companies where full-time employment does not render a living wage. By the way, that includes teachers, alongside restaurant workers, custodial staff, caregivers, health care workers, and many more. As needed employees who are paid hourly when there's work. Snow removal. That's landscaping when there's no snow. Your constituents, our constituents, who tell us about how they are juggling child care, rent, groceries, gas, and health care. So they drive for a rideshare company. Some, not to pay for a vacation. or a fancy dinner out, but to feed their children or help care for their elderly family. Drivers make $35 an hour according to Uber, but the term they use is utilized hour. You will hear driver testimony about how a utilized hour equates to as much as three hours on the road. Drivers are further disadvantaged because they don't set the fare. They don't have any input on the fare. Drivers aren't responsible for fare hikes, surge pricing, much less whether or not safety measures are implemented. We learned that last year. Or whether or not they're enforced. Drivers do not determine the marketing campaigns, the executive compensation, the stock prices, or the stop option packages. Profits determine those. and so maybe a driver needs to head out, heads out, they need $100 to make rent. That could take four hours, it could take six. The only way to assure a living wage for a driver is to drive more hours and that's the point. Of course rideshare companies should make a profit and make returns for investors and shareholders. As they enter into these contracts with drivers, those contracts should not only provide decent returns for the drivers, but they should also be transparent and non-exploitative. In this bill, we've proposed an 80-20 ratio. The drivers wanted to introduce the bill with that number, and they felt it was important. In talking to rideshare companies, they can't get on board, but they also can't get on board at any number. and they can't get on board with a minimum fare. Wow. However, in further conversations with folks, we drafted an amendment that clarifies the 80-20 split would happen after state and locally imposed fees. We ask for an aye vote on the bill and on the forthcoming amendment. Thank you, bill sponsors, committee members.
What questions do we have for our bill sponsors? I see Rep. Mabry and Rep. Ryden.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing this bill. I have seen online that Uber's profits last year were about $10 billion. dollars. Is there any breakdown in terms of how much of the money that they take in is needed for operations compared to a breakdown for how much is just in pure corporate profit? Who wants to take that? Red Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Mabry for the question. We did not dive super far into their financials, but I'm very sure that there will be a representative from Uber here, and you're welcome to ask them that, because we certainly ask a lot of questions and don't get a lot of answers, but you're certainly welcome to try. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious how this change would impact that $10 billion profit. So it sounds like you have tried to have these conversations, but they didn't provide information. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we were told that any information about where they're spending their money and how their pricing works is proprietary, and they wouldn't be able to share it with us. They also indicated that, as you heard from Representative Follick, we specifically asked on this bill if an 80-20 split isn't ideal for you? What is the split that is acceptable to you? Recognizing that it's the workers that are driving and bringing all of the resources to the table and they should be able to make a living wage while doing this work. And their answer was there is no split. The other thing that they shared is that there's no other state in the nation that has a rate cap established. And so when they do come forward, I would ask you to ask them why there isn't any other state that's been able to pass a rate cap or able to pass safety measures. And I would argue that the answer is because they have killed those bills. Similar to the trivia question number two about how much money did they spend in California, they spent $200 million to kill that measure because that measure would have meant that they had to also pay the drivers. Rep. Rulick. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Rep. Mabry. I think for the interest of the committee, there is available online where Colorado stacks up and where drivers can make the most money, and most of the time it's in a comparison to cost of living. So you have southern states, Kentucky, Alabama, where the cost of living is very low. In those places drivers can make a go of it But Colorado is about in the middle in terms of the ability of Uber to make money and Uber and Lyft to make money in Colorado The outgoing communication from Uber to their passengers indicates that they couldn't do business here unless they could double the fares. and we've had price hikes consistently in Colorado from rideshare companies. I believe that we all understand that a multi-billion dollar company will find a way to make profits. What we're asking here is that they also find a way to pay a decent wage. Thank you, Madam Chair. In looking at the math problem, Am I right? And it's about 30% is what Uber collected off of that fare, the $90 and the $30. Is that right? That will first. So what we're having a tough time understanding is how much of what their fee is and what the insurance is is actually going to their costs and how much is going to their revenue because they won't share that information with us. so if we had so thank you Madam Chair so you just don't know essentially and that's why having the 2080 would be helpful for this thank you Madam Chair thank you for the questions so the companies have shared with us that they feel there's about 20% of the fare going to taxes and fees which is why we brought the amendment to say alright well let's take that off and then let's split the remaining 80-20. But in terms of what the driver ends up with currently, it can be as low as 25%. Originally when folks signed up, there was a 70-30 sort of understanding, and I'm not sure how codified that was, but most of the drivers signed up with that sort of as the basis understanding. Now we're seeing, especially on these long trips, which is what Uber really needs drivers to say yes to, airport rides and things like that, that we're seeing a really small fraction of that fare going to the driver because they've cut rates on the short about town, take drunk people from one bar to another, which is where they're making their money. Rep English. Thank you, Madam Chair. what is the out of all the concerns what is the it's a two part question the main point of opposition and how will this particular policy benefit drivers over time who wants to take that thank you Madam Chair thank you for the question Rep. English I'll let the opposition outline how they can't possibly do this. As you know from the email that we sent around, and it was the same with assuring safety for passengers and drivers. They couldn't possibly do that. They would have to leave Colorado. That's what we've been told. For the drivers, you know, we've seen this. This is a job in which you are trying to figure out how to make money on off hours So for the drivers to have more assurances of what the fare means in terms of how much money they going to make allows them to plan their whole budget allows them to plan for how much they are going to drive to pay rent or how much they're going to drive to make groceries because that's what drivers are spending their money on. And so it allows the families to thrive. Rev. Wilford. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to add on to what my co-prime just shared. I think when we talk about how a bill like this will benefit drivers, we're talking about drivers actually being paid for their time, right? Them actually being able to make a living wage and not having to work three hours just to have one utilized hour of driving. It also means dignity on the job. And dignity goes a long way. I am not, I'm a little perplexed by the argument that, you know, Uber will completely go under if, you know, if we pass a bill like this, because I would actually think that this would make their business model so much more appealing to people who would want to drive because they're actually guaranteed the ability to make money because they're using all of their personal effects in order to make money. I think the last piece that I would add around how this will benefit drivers is it's flat out transparency. People aren't having to guess how they're actually going to make wages. They actually know what they'll be paid and they are able to anticipate it and plan their lives accordingly. Rep. English. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess the goal is the idea for them to, I'm just asking because I'm trying to understand, is there not already like a set schedule and is that, are they getting pushback for wanting a set schedule so that they can be able to properly plan? Rep. Fulick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. English. The whole system is based on drivers accepting rides. And so you're incentivized to keep accepting rides. You can hop into your car at any time of day or night, and then you just begin accepting the rides that come through. The problem is you don't know where that ride, especially if you're a new driver, you're not privy to the information. You don't know where they're going or what the fare will be. And you have to hop on it. You can't be the third person to accept that fare. It goes to the first person. So this is why you hear stories of drivers, no bathroom breaks. The only way they can make it is to be the first one to accept the ride. You don't know where you're going. You get in the car. You drive the person. It's a $90 fare. And as we saw in this illustration, at the end of an hour, and remember, you're waiting around to accept that. So you finally got a yes. And at the end of the day you made $35 and you drove for an hour. Last question. Sorry, last question. Rep. English. What's the percentage, thank you, Madam Chair, what's the percentage of what the driver gets from the initial amount? So the purpose of the bill is that that can, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Rep. English. That's the purpose of the bill. It ranges from as low as 15%. And remember the driver does not control the algorithms So they don know They don control surge pricing they don control the distance pricing so and we don know what that is either because that's proprietary but it can be as low as 15% and it in some cases it is at that original promised 70% but we will have driver's testimony telling you that of how difficult it is to figure that out and to make plans accordingly and then ultimately to make a decent wage. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going over the papers that you gave us and on here I'm going over the expenditures, the ride payment, the Uber service fee, insurance fees, blah, blah, blah. And then it came down to you earned more for this trip because your rider left a tip. Sweet. So can you tell me how much that tip was? And also, does Uber or Lyft, do they keep any portion of that tip, or does that all go to the driver? Rep, one point. Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Rep Kelty, for the question. So the added tip was $1.50. and the tips are retained entirely by the drivers.
Rep. Lita. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see on here Uber service fees, $38.88, insurance and other fees, $25.22. Who pays the car insurance? Does the drivers have to pay the car insurance or does Uber do that?
Rep. Fulick. I know there was issues with that back in the day. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep Leader. Uber pays an overall insurance fee should there be an accident that occurs when you're driving for Uber. That's additional insurance. But the driver must maintain their own insurance on their vehicle. And then should they get in an accident when they're not driving for Uber, of course, that would be under their provision. So they don't get out of paying insurance. It's just double paid a little bit by the company when they're driving for Uber. And that's what you're seeing there in that 1278.
Rep. Lita. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if the Uber driver drops somebody off and they're en route to go pick somebody up, whose insurance is covered then?
Rep. Fulick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Rep. Lita. Uber has clarified that you're on route to pick up a ride, you're covered. You're in a ride, you're covered. You get off and you're tooling around waiting and you haven't pressed except you're on your own. Thank you. Fred Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. So you walked us through this math problem. but to me and I don't know if it was done on purpose but this is right from where I live basically to the airport but the question I guess is the IRS reimbursement rate is also very generous to begin with where it's set and you worked out to $15 for the 40 minute ride and of course there's wait time before and after before you can pick up another ride or you're waiting on one. But if it winds up being $15 an hour before any tip, the state minimum wage is about $15 and the minimum wages of like $12. This person obviously was very cheap. I would never, I've done this route and that would be nothing close to what I would tip. So again, if it's kind of an entry level job, what you described doesn't sound outside the norm, if you see what I'm saying. Could you explain why it is as much of a travesty as you're saying? Rip Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for the question. Representative Marshall. So first and foremost, there's no guarantee of a tip on any ride. Secondly, yes, the IRS mileage reimbursement is generous because it's supposed to cover wear and tear of a vehicle. And in addition to wear and tear of a vehicle, you're still paying your own personal insurance. You're still paying your own cell phone bill. You're still paying the cost of licensing the vehicle. You're still paying for any of the other expenses that allows you to show up and drive as a driver. And all of those pile up. And so when you're only making $15 an hour and you're turning around to pay those expenses, you're not really making minimum wage. Furthermore, I would argue that minimum wage does not truly correlate with the cost of living in the metro area. I don't know a single person that only works 40 hours a week making minimum wage that is able to cover the costs of living in this state without any government assistance. Rep. Froelich. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. Marshall. And again, that $15 is on this fare, so it's not the time it took to get there, and it's not the time sitting at the airport waiting for the next fare. and then I think what we're trying to say in this bill is to look at the fare and then make a fair extrapolation of what the, after you take out insurance and other fees. And then if you notice on this particular one, Uber generously offered the rider $4.65 extra for partaking in the promo and that came out of the driver. It didn't come out of their marketing budget. It didn't come out of, it came to, so when Uber is making promotions to encourage ridership, they're doing it on the back, taking money out of the, further taking money out of the driver's pocket. Rep Kelti. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't like that part about taking, if you're going to give a promotion, you take it out of your own pocket, not somebody else's pocket. I do agree with that one. But with the insurance that Uber pays, I used to own my own business, So I'm well versed in. So with the insurance that they pay, does that include coverage of customers as well? Like there's insurance that you pay for your employees, but then there's insurance that you pay to make sure your customers are safe, if something were to happen, which we saw last year. We put through that bill that insured customer safety, driver safety, all that kind of stuff. So we made sure all that. That's all done. But that comes at a cost. and insurance as we know is not cheap so do you know that if the insurance and other fees does that include the insurance that also covers customers, customer safety driver safety as well as the vehicle and all that Thank you Madam Chair thank you for the question Rep Kelty what it covers is something that happens in the course of driving the vehicle or an accident So if you get in an accident in Uber and you injured it would be the same injury provisions as you would have if you were in your own car. There has been some recent successful cases in terms of safety, particularly on passenger and driver assault cases. Those are on a one-by-one basis. So that insurance does not cover something like assault in the vehicle or any of those things. But it covers what would happen in a regular private car versus private car accident. Can I, Wilford? Thank you. Representative Kelty, it also includes uninsured motorist insurance as well, in addition to the driver and the rider coverage while the rider is in the vehicle. Uber has shared with us that the other fees also includes the cost of a background check, but I'll remind you that I don't know how often they do background checks. They're only required by law, I believe, to do every five years because they worked very hard to kill our safety bill last session. So none of that is in place.
Rep. Kelty.
Thank you, ma'am. Just sit over here. Thank you, ma'am, Chair. So do you know if, so I know when I get insurance, they ask, you know, how far are you driving, how many miles are you driving? Did you take into account that this is not just your standard auto insurance, that they're driving 11 miles. So when the company pays for that, it's not a normal insurance cost. It's actually elevated. It's higher. So out of the insurance cost here, being the $12.78, I mean, how much are you aware of that, that that will cost more to the company and that maybe what's reflected in the insurance and other fees? Referral, like. Yeah, and this reflects – thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Representative.
That's reflected in the amendment that we would take out that fee. So that fee, that's the cost that Uber is paying to insure that vehicle while that person is driving for Uber. But remember that the driver is required to maintain their own insurance, which they also then are paying additional because of all the miles they travel because that car is their work vehicle. And then if you also think about lease agreements, a lot of these drivers are driving leased vehicles. They haven't purchased their vehicle. Your lease is also determined on your mileage. So they're paying more in a lease than they would be if they were just doing the standard 12,000 miles that you and I drive in a year for our insurance.
Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
For the example you passed out with the trip details that shows the rider payment, their earnings, the tip, is this information available to the driver before they accept the ride?
Rep. Rolick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Rep. Richardson. and the driver does not know this until afterwards. This is what a driver sent us afterwards. Okay, thank you. The driver doesn't know whether they're going to be tipped. They don't really, especially early. I believe if you've driven for a while, you get additional information as one of the perks but the drivers are told to accept as many rides You receive better rides coming to you and more rides coming to you the more rides you accept. So you're urged to accept as much as possible and you don't know. And that's part of what we're trying to bring as well as to the transparency piece. Red Wolfe, did you want to add anything to that?
Are there any other questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, we're going to go into the witness testimony. Did you have a preference on against and for or for against?
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would love to have a couple of support panels and then the opposed panel and then whatever is left in terms of support.
Okay, thank you. Okay, so we're going to start off with our first support panel, Mr. Christopher Bonham, Evan Tartt, Mamadee Seti, Moshi Ben-Yuda, and Brandon Markham. If you're here online, please make your way to the front of the room. I'd also like to call up Ms. Gabriela Arias Solis Carla Chavez Please come right up and then we can grab one of the green chairs and bring it on either end. Thank you. There is a microphone on the end, and you see by the plug, there's that little button. If it turns on green, then the microphone's on. And please start out by introducing yourself, who you're representing, and give us your testimony. So Gabby is going to read in Spanish first, and then I'll read it afterward in English. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Please begin.
Good afternoon, my name is Gabriela Irías. Today I'm a member of my experience as a conductor of transport platform. I've been a conductor of Uber and Lyft for more than a year, and I also have the honor to support other conductors as a coordinator of Colorado Independent Drivers Unit. as a woman and as a conductor I know how difficult it can be to maintain a source of income stable for maintaining a home many have been waiting for long hours waiting in places like the airport with the hope of receiving a trip that really pays just for our time and effort During a long time I asked how it is possible that there is no law that protects the independent workers in this industry. because the reality is that many of the passengers have had to deal with very low hours of work compared to what a passenger pays. And in a system where we depend on the buses so that a travel really worth the cost. However, we continue to assume the cost of vehicles, the gasoline, maintenance and security. When I heard the first time of the organization, I was just a moment to see how I found a path. I first saw that the conductors could unite and defend our rights and work for a just change. Today, through my work, I've had the opportunity to listen to the stories of many conductors, stories of families that depend on this work, people who work more than 15 or 18 hours a day, Even though, to cover basically their expenses. Working long hours without a fair compensation does not only affect our income, it affects our families, our emotional stability, and our quality of life.
So can I read it in English? Yes, please. Okay. Please introduce yourself.
My name is Juliana Gonzalez. I work with Gabby. I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Independent Drivers United. So, good afternoon, Mr. and Mrs. Representatives. My name is Gabriela Arias. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my experience as a rideshare driver. I have been a driver on platforms such as Uber and Lyft for over a year, and I also have the honor of supporting my fellow drivers as an organizer with Colorado Independent Drivers United. As a woman and as a driver, I know how difficult it can be to maintain a stable source of income to support a household. Many of us spend long hours waiting in places like the airport hoping to receive a trip that truly pays fairly for our time and our effort. I have experienced extremely long work days as well as the anxiety of knowing that a single unfair rating can put our account and our source of income at risk. For thousands of drivers, our work depends entirely on internal decisions made by the platforms, decisions that often lack clear or fair process. For a long time I asked myself, how is it possible that there is no law protecting independent workers in this industry? Because the reality is that many drivers face endless working hours, very low pay compared to what the passenger actually pays, and a system where we rely on tips just to make the trip worthwhile. Meanwhile, we continue to carry the cost of the vehicle, gasoline, maintenance, and insurance. When I first learned about CIDU, I honestly felt like I had found a light along the way. For the first time, I saw that drivers could unite and defend their rights and pursue a fair change. Today, though, in my work, I have had the opportunity to hear the stories of many other drivers, stories of families who depend on this work, of people who work more than 15 or even 18 hours a day and still struggle to cover their basic expenses. Long hours without fair compensation does not only affect our income, it affects our families, our emotional stability, our quality of life. Time is one of the most valuable resources we have as human beings. and that time should be respected while there is a time of a driver working to support a family or that of a worker in society. That is why we're here today. We're not asking for privileges. We're asking for justice. We're asking to be heard and for the value of our work to be recognized.
Thank you. Next witness. Please unmute. You have two minutes. Let us know who you are representing and give us your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Carla Chavez. I'm the lead wage theft organizer at Colorado Jobs with Justice, and that is who I'm here representing in support of HB 261273. Colorado Jobs with Justice is a coalition of labor, community, faith, and student organizations that works to advance workers' rights and economic justice across the state. For decades, we have partnered with the working people and community members to advocate for policies that ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and the dignity for all workers. HB 261273 is a common sense policy that would ensure rideshare drivers receive a fair share of their fares that they generate by capping the percentage that rideshare companies can retain. When rideshare platforms first launched, drivers were promised that they would keep about 80% of their fare. But today, companies are often taking nearly half or more of what riders pay. Our organization studied the realities faced by gig drivers in Denver. In COJWJ's 2022 Reality of Denver Gig Drivers survey, we surveyed over 360 drivers. We found that after accounting for expenses such as gas, vehicle maintenance, and unpaid waiting time, drivers earned an average of only $5.49 per hour. It is now estimated to be around $8, but still remains far below Denver's minimum wage. At the time, these jobs are not simply side work. 61% of the drivers rely entirely on gig work for their income, and drivers reported that nearly 80% of their earnings come from gig platforms. Drivers also shoulder the full cost of the work itself, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and the vehicle payments, while companies continue to increase the share of fares they retain. This bill addresses the imbalance by ensuring drivers receive at least 80% of what riders pay, helping to keep more earnings in the hands of Colorado workers rather than out-of-state corporations. Colorado Jobs with Justice supports this bill because it advances economic fairness, transparency, and stability for thousands of drivers who provide essential transportation services for our communities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much. Next witness.
Hi, I'm Brendan Markham. I've been on the platform, various platforms, for 11 and a half years. I've seen the business change quite a bit in that time. I'm going to just read from a letter that I wrote recently. You know, 11 and a half years ago, this was honorable. I always see it as a public service and thus regulation is not overstep my message for drivers is to act locally Sorry. The bottom line is that Uber and Lyft ought to be treated like the public transport authority is, with some form of regulation to ensure that a service which has become increasingly a societal necessity The rideshare industry has become about as close to a monopoly as you can get. Time to regulate and treat everybody fairly. The last few times I've used rideshare as a customer, it has taken an eternity to get a match because they're just shopping around the lowest of the low rates. These companies are degenerates. They deactivate on a whim since they take the customer feedback 100% over the drivers. I have had deactivation complications which were resolved, but they were initially for illegitimate reasons on both platforms. We're basically regulated to attempting to fix things with help from halfway across the world. People that can't even relate to what we deal with as a driver, and oftentimes we seek quick resolution on this. These are things that can be reformed. In Denver, we've been given a third alternative with co-op. It's driver-owned, and it addresses a lot of the concerns about fair treatment for drivers and riders, and we look for that to set a precedent.
Okay. Well, thank you. And next witness, you have two minutes. Let us know who you're representing, and please state your name.
Thank you, Chairwoman Ricks and other members of the committee. My name is Evan Tart, and I'm here speaking on my own behalf as a passionate citizen of Colorado. For context on my experience with this matter, I have the privilege to be the lead attorney of Colorado Independent Drivers United Driver Support Organization. CIDU DSO provides assistance to drivers who have been deactivated from transportation network platforms. I'm here to urge the committee to vote in favor of HB 261273 so that drivers may rightfully take home more of the money they earn. I've witnessed firsthand the dedication that drivers show towards their job, their reliance on this income to build a dignified life, and the economic disruption that results from often wrongful deactivations by the transportation network companies, TNCs, such as Uber or Lyft. We have drivers coming in who have spent years driving, completed tens of thousands of rides for Uber or Lyft, working 40 hours a week, afraid to take even a single sick day just to make it past the next car payment or electric bill. Not only is it a struggle to make ends meet while actively driving, but drivers are at a constant risk of deactivation from an uncaring deactivation review process that sees them not as human drivers, but rather an input in an algorithmic model. As a result, there are drivers who have been forced to resort to payday loans or credit card debt. TNCs often tout their opportunities as a side gig or a way to earn extra money, but a 2022 study found that a large majority, approximately 61% of so-called gig drivers in Colorado, were completely dependent upon that income to provide for their families. So what exactly do drivers get? The report I referenced earlier found that after accounting for unpaid waiting time and necessary expenses, the average net hourly rate for Uber drivers was $8.77. cents. Assuming a 40-hour work week with no weeks off, this amounts to just over $18,000 a year before taxes. In 2024, Uber CEO earned $39.4 million for the combined annual earnings of roughly 2 Colorado Uber drivers Supporters of HP 26 1273 like myself merely want to ensure the workers who actually enable such astronomical executive compensation are themselves able to feed and clothe their children, pay their bills, build a dignified life. I urge the committee to vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you. There's no one online, right? Okay. Committee members, what questions do you have for this group?
Ms. Rep. Murrow. I apologize. Not the gentleman that just spoke, but you. As to who my question is for, I forgot your name. Did you say something about a co-op and what is that? Can you explain that to me? I've never heard of that before. Sure.
Co-op was founded about 18 months ago with the cooperation of several nonprofits, to my understanding. The goal of co-op is to give a viable alternative in the Denver and Front Range area to Uber and Lyft. Passengers are tired of surprises as much as we are. And, you know, I use Rideshare as a passenger almost as frequently as I drive, to be honest with you. I live in central Denver. It is a utility for me. Co-op gives me much fairer treatment, and I will seek out opportunities to use co-op over the others. So to clarify, it's similar to Uber or Lyft, but it's up here in Denver, is that correct?
Correct, yes.
And it's driver-owned? It's based on the Singapore app we acquired from testing halfway across the world. And, yeah, and the other thing I'll say is it is a true cooperative. Every driver owns a share of it. I think we share a desire to see it succeed, and so do most of the passengers that are represented.
Yes. Mr. Markham, so speaking of the co-op, is that only available in the city and county of Denver, or is that like Denver metro area?
Well, the goal is to make it more ubiquitous across the front range, to my understanding. And it's also been patterned for implementation of other cities. But I don't know. Again, I'm just like a partial owner, I guess, as a driver. So I don't profess to be the expert. but I have enough understanding about it to know that I want it to succeed as a third opportunity, a third resource.
Rep Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for all of the drivers on the panel. Anyone of you can chime in. I'm curious if there is consistency in how much you all are paid in terms of a ride to the airport or in terms of how much time you're spending in your car, or does it feel like what you're being paid for rides is really random and not necessarily based on time or distance? Mr. Markham, who wants to take that?
I'll take that. I'll just provide one allegory. I was at the CU Buffs game versus BYU, incredibly popular game. Of course, you expect a surge. I had my car there and was able to test from a driver and a passenger perspective where the rate was in that very good case study of what surges are and how they unfair The fare on regular or comfort to my house in Wash Park from Boulder was at its peak The offers that it was spitting out were $30 to Denver. It's robbery. And it should be a public resource. It's a duopoly right now, and we're seeking to make it different in Denver, but from a rider perspective as well, it's frustrating as hell.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So what I'm hearing from that is when there was a big surge in a particular area, what you were paid was roughly the same, but what went to the app skyrocketed. So that's the first part of the follow-up question. Next part of the question is when there's not a surge, and then again, anybody can take this. When there's not a surge, let's say you're driving at like 2 p.m. on a Tuesday. There's no Broncos, Nuggets, or Rockies game or concert. Do you notice consistency in what you're paid in terms of time driving and distance? Mr. Markham?
At the risk of monopolizing the conversation, I'll also address that. I, you know, like I said, I live in central Denver. I test fares to the airport all the time from passenger and driver perspective. What I'm seeing at my house has a huge delta. It's from $15 to the airport, which would never even pay your gas, to $40 or $50. So I'll say when things stack up, you know, it's fair when the time is right. But I spend an inordinate amount of time and opportunity fielding offers that are out there because I'm pragmatic. I enjoy it, but I don't want to put miles on my car and spend time that is well above what should be asked.
And Gabby is also a driver. So what she said that, yeah, she doesn't know one for the next. There's not a consistent of what she's going to make whenever she picks a ride.
Okay.
Red Brooks. Chair, thank you. Did dovetail a little bit off my colleague's question, and then also because gas was just mentioned. I'm talking about the kind of expectation that it kind of stays in a certain area. But then what we're seeing here recently, yeah, I know it's happening everywhere, with a spike of gas prices. I think I read something like they've gone up about 65 cents a gallon recently. I think we could probably expect to see that continue just with international issues that are happening right now. Does the company, do you start to see a little bit more of a share, a little bit more of an offset to be able to help with spikes like that? Because that's quite a spike in a very short amount of time. Mr. Markham?
I saw a feebling effort, mainly by Uber, after COVID when gas went up. 55 cents per ride. I never looked at the math there, but I will say my average ride, that doesn't probably cover it. I hope they do better this time.
And Gabby said she didn't...
Miss Iris. Sorry. Miss Solis? Yeah. Okay.
And I asked Gabby, and Gabby said that, yeah, she doesn't notice any type of help with the gas prices from Uber or Lyft when they go up or down.
Rev Kelty. Oh. She said 50 miles for $20, right? Okay. Rev Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have a genuine question. I work, so I make money. Well, except for this job, I'm losing money. But that's a sacrifice on my own account. But if you're not making money, why are you doing it? So who wants to take that question?
Mr. Markham?
That's a fair question. I'll characterize my best client as my wife. She travels weekly. She's able to expense her transportation. and she treats me like a black car driver, which is how I prefer to be treated in any circumstance, because I go above and beyond.
I'm sorry, can you repeat the last part? If you're not making money, why not?
As I said earlier, I enjoy this. a characterization well this is a gig that enables me to do my other ventures and even the ship more or less that said my favorite times to work are Friday and Saturday night people are in good mood they're tipping appropriately it makes it worthwhile so I don't do it
It's, you know, it helps toward income and stability for my household. But I also drive for Hop Skip Drive, which is kids to and from school. Much better example of a company that treats people fairly. My fares are $30 to $50 the way that I select them in there. I'm able to structure it so that that's a viable alternative for school districts and
for parents as well as for drivers. Ms. Solis, did you want to add something?
Yes. So this is not a job where, like this would be to supplement other income from another job and the flexibility. And what Gabby has said was how it was a year ago and a lot of people have said this, when you start it's better and then it just gets worse. But I mean it's also the flexibility and most people are on two apps, a couple of different apps. It's not just one. So you can't just do one to make money.
Okay.
And then, Rev Kelty, you have additional follow-up? I do have a follow-up, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. So can you, my other question was, well, for what you just said, can you expound on how it was good and then got worse? I don't understand that part. And then do you get to choose? I've never done this, but do you get to choose when you want to go and who you want and that kind of stuff? Is that by choice, or did they say, hey, you got this,
and you better go get it?
Mr. Markham, did you want to take a shot at that? Sure. That kind of a barbed question because to a certain extent there choice but in my situation unless I out there during peak times when there is somewhat of a surge as unfair as surge has become for drivers it just doesn make sense I you know again I'm blessed to be in central Denver I can only imagine if I was commuting in for this purpose I'm able to basically get things done around the house while I field offers the unfortunate thing is over the past couple of years even it's been measurable as far as the delta and offers and whether they make sense the the majority of them just don't I mean Black Hawk for 17 bucks. I mean it'll be a break.
Did you have an answer?
Ms. Solis? Gabby does a lot of hers at the airport when she was driving. At the airport you do get to choose. You're not going to know exactly how much but when you are around town if you're not accepting rides like when they send them your rating is going to drop and then you're not going to get good rides like good amount of money. Because it's controlled by the algorithm, so they can tell, like, it lowers your rating when you're not accepting rights when they're sending it to you.
Mr. Ben Huda? Mr. Tartt.
Oh, Mr. Tartt, I'm sorry.
No worries.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your question. And to add a little bit of context to this as well, we have a lot of people coming into the organization where this is their full-time job. This is over 40 hours a week. So technically speaking, yes, they could go on the app at any time, but most people that come into our office, I would say, are probably putting over 40 hours a week into this. So yes, they can choose to go on and off, but as mentioned, there's surge prices, there's incentives, things like that for Uber to control when drivers are getting on the app. And most drivers on the app, almost all day, just trying to make a living wage here.
Okay. Well, that's all the time we have for this panel. So we're going to call up our next panel of witnesses. This next panel are going to be people who are against the bill. We're going to call up Leslie Oliver, Lynn Reed, Stephanie Sass, Harry Hartfield. And then also Mr. Avalos, Francisco Avalos. Okay. And Andrew Woods. Also, Corey Marshall. Are you the only one? Okay, I do see some people online. Okay, they're all online. Okay, we're going to start in the room. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. Tony, please let us know who you're representing and give us your name. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Leslie Oliver, and I'm here on behalf of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses of all sizes across the Denver region. And we are here to respectfully urge a no vote on House Bill 1273. This bill is another example of government inserting itself into how private businesses operate and meet the needs of consumers It overlooks the real world costs requirements and pressures businesses must balance every day to keep goods and services accessible When policymakers dictate those decisions it ultimately limits choice and drives up costs for consumers Colorado's competitiveness is at stake. We rank 11th overall in CNBC's 2025 top states for business, but already sit 38th in cost of doing business and 47th in cost of living. A first in the nation cap like this adds regulatory risk and likely pushes prices higher the wrong direction for Colorado's families and employers. For these reasons, the Denver Metro Chamber respectfully asks for a no vote on House Bill 1273. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Oliver. We're going to go online to several people up there. Why don't we go with Lynn Reed with Drive Forward and also who wants to go? She's there. Yeah. You have two minutes to give us your testimony, Ms. Reed. Chairman, Chairman, Chairman, Ricks, and members, thank you for hearing us. Okay. It sounds like you're auctioning up there. But there's an echo. I have to turn my volume down, so I'm going to just go for it here because I can't hear you completely. So I apologize. There's an echo, though. Do you have, like, two devices up on? I don't. Everything is closed out. I'm not sure what's going on. Is it still bad? Okay, you sounded clear right there. So let's go. Let's go with your testimony. Okay, okay. Chairwoman Riggs and community members, thank you for hearing our public comment today. My name is Lynn Reed and I live just south of Seattle, Washington. I have been on multiple platforms in the greater Seattle area since 2016 and I'm also part of a nonprofit organization called Drive Forward based in Seattle. We represent at-base workers in Washington State with over 2,000 members. Drive Forward was formed in 2015 by a group of driver activists and have been actively providing training, education, and advocacy on local state legislation affecting at-base workers. In 2020, Seattle passed fair share legislation that intended to create a minimum paid floor for drivers. Rates were increased from $1.18 per mile, $0.18 per minute, and today are $1.63 per mile and $0.70 per minute. This massive price increased with the minimum earnings standard well above minimum wage and the IRS per mile rate. These new higher rates had an immediate devastating effect on consumer pricing and driver earnings. We believe HB1273's 80-20 capital caused similar effects on Colorado. For example, at peak in 2019, 26.5 million TNC trips that year were taken versus 12.7 million in 2025. This is a decrease of 52%, as opposed to a modest 2.5% increase in rides that originated in King County outside of the legislated city limit. The unintended consequences of our share standard have been fewer rides for drivers and prices nearly doubling for riders. Drivers wait up to an hour between trips and work longer hours to make the same or less. Many riders have been priced out of first-mile, last-mile trips. These are rides that provide safe transportation to and from residences, schools, workplaces, and transit centers. Seattle's experience can inform the likely outcome of a 20% T&C take rate as it would further impact the already narrow margins companies have. An example in Washington state 35 of every mile on every trip goes towards legally required liability insurance That 21 percent of the per mile rate surpassing the proposed 20 percent take Reasonable TNC. Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because we're over the two-minute mark. These involve drivers, stakeholders, and consumers to craft helpful, thoughtful, effective legislation. Okay, thank you so much, Mrs. Reed. Well, thank you. Oh, she muted us. Okay, well, thanks. Okay, sorry. Sorry, I couldn't hear what you said. Yeah, you had gone over just, you know, the two-minute mark. But thank you for your testimony. Please stand by for questions. We're going to go on to Mr. Hartfield. Please unmute. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. Hello. Good afternoon, chair X and members of the committee. My name is Harry Hartfield. I lead product policy for Uber, and I'm here to testify to urge a no vote on HP 1273. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I do want to quickly address a few claims that I made today that are just categorically untrue. Rider promotions do not come out of Rider Pay. Drivers have a $50,000 in insurance whenever the app is on, covered by Uber under the law. Under Colorado law, drivers also see their fare and destination before the trip. And under the same law, which was actually passed by many members of this legislator, companies can't use acceptance rate to determine what offer someone gets. So I do just want to clarify a few things that I think were pretty untrue. We share the goal of ensuring drivers are fairly compensated. But if enacted, this bill would implement first of its kind price controls that will result in higher costs for families and fewer opportunities for drivers. The portion of the fare retained by Uber is not simply profit. These funds cover an array of essential costs, including credit card processing fees, customer support, and most importantly, government mandated insurance costs. Today in Colorado, 14 percent of every rider fare goes towards required commercial insurance costs. Seven percent is consumed by government mandated fees and taxes, and that does not include credit card fees. And that's, in fact, around a quarter of all trips in Colorado lose money when you account for these costs. Given all that, the only way for Uber to comply with this law would be to more than double prices for riders. Essentially, decades of inflationary pressure mandated overnight by the state legislature. None of this is hidden from drivers. Colorado has the most rigorous transparency laws in the entire world. Further, under this kind of price control mandate, it's unlikely that platforms could afford to absorb the cost of commercial insurance. Instead, we would require drivers to purchase their own commercial insurance policy for thousands of dollars a year. It would threaten to price out the majority of part-time drivers, leaving only a fraction of the current fleet on the road. With fewer drivers available, the affordable UberX service people rely on would effectively be eliminated, turning rideshare into a high-end luxury available only to a few wealthy Coloradans. Okay, I'm going to have to stop you, Mr. Hartfield, but please stay there, and we're going to take questions after everyone's testified. Okay, we have Mr. Corey Marshall. Where is that echo? Is that coming from us? I think it's coming from you. Can you hear me? Ms. Reed, please mute your – yes, thank you. Okay, so yes, you may begin your testimony. You have two minutes. Please tell us who you're representing. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and members of the committee. My name is Corey Marshall, Senior Director of State and Local Public Policy at the Chamber of Progress, Tech Industry Coalition, working to ensure innovation benefits all communities. I am hearing respectful opposition to HB 1273, and I'd also like the record to reflect that if we took a scan of my Uber taxicab or LIP transcripts, you would see that I'm an excessive, heavily tipper. So my testimony in opposition to this bill cannot be mistaken as an opponent of drivers' financial progress. This bill caps the amount of a rideshare fare that platforms can retain at 20%. But that cap applies not to just profits, but also to operational costs, insurance, taxes, background checks, safety technology, and regulatory compliance, which we know that this committee supports. In Colorado, those costs are already significant. State law requires some of the highest rise share insurance coverages in the country. As it relates to this bill, when the math does not work, platforms have one option, to raise fares. We've seen this play out in Seattle, where a similar framework calls some trip prices to more than double. And as prices rose, trip value fail. We absolutely support fair driver compensation, but HB 1273 would likely produce the opposite. Higher prices for riders, fewer trips for drivers, and reduced service for communities that need it the most. We'd welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on a data-driven approach that improves transparency. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Please stand by. We're going to go on to Francisco Avalos. Yes, hi. Good afternoon, Chair Ricks, Vice Chair Camacho, and members of the committee. My name is Francisco Avalos, Senior Public Policy Manager with Lyft, and I'm here in respectful opposition to HB 261273. Lyft shares the goal of ensuring drivers are fairly compensated and riders have affordable, reliable service, and this bill truthfully delivers the opposite. A take rate is by nature dynamic. It reflects real-time market conditions such as driver supply and rider demand. Any artificial cap on the take rate or an earnings floor without a serious discussion of market impacts will likely result in higher fares and therefore lower demand as some consumers find ride share no longer affordable. When demand falls, drivers have less opportunities to earn, which can end up hurting their overall take-home pay. On average, Colorado drivers currently earn over $35 per hour per engaged hour. This bill puts that at risk because driver earnings are a function of ride volume, not just per trip margin. Fewer riders means fewer trips and lower overall earnings for the very driver this bill claims to protect. What makes this bill particularly damaging is that it does not account for external fees, the ride costs that go to neither the driver or Lyft. In Colorado, external costs alone, which include UM, UIM, taxes, and government fees, often exceed that 20% cap. That's before Lyft retains a single cent for operations, safety technology, or background checks. It is rare for any industry to face a statutory cap on revenue. Doing so removes all flexibility to raise driver earnings, invest in safety, or respond to market conditions. Lyft's dynamic marketplace is constantly working to strike a balance between competitive fares, ETAs, attractive earnings, reasonable profits, while also taking into account these external fees. The competition naturally pushes fares lower and earnings higher, as we are constantly vying for our competitors for both riders and drivers. The riders who are the most vulnerable. In Colorado, 32% of our rides begin or end in low areas Lower riders are twice as likely to use Lyft to commute to work three times more likely to Mr Avalos I going to have to stop you there Please hold for questions Next we going to go on to Andrew Woods from TechNet Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 1273. My name is Andrew Wood, and I'm the executive director for TechNet Central Region. TechNet is the national bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy. We share the legislature's goal of ensuring that drivers are fairly compensated, but unfortunately, this bill would produce outcomes that are directly contrary to that goal. The core problem is that the bill's 20% cap must cover not just the TNC's profit, but all other legally mandated per-trip costs, including commercial insurance and a slew of other costs that you've heard from other testifiers today. And those alone can exceed 20% of the average fare. So the math just doesn't work at current prices, which means fares would have to rise significantly to make each trip viable. And higher fares reduce demand. Reduced demand then means fewer trips and less money available to drivers, the opposite of what this bill intends. And we saw this play out in Seattle, where a similar regulation caused fares to jump by more than 40%, demand dropped sharply, and drivers ended up earning less per hour than in comparable markets. When the platform can't cover fixed costs within the CAP, those costs have to shift, and that ultimately isn't good for drivers or riders in Colorado. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote no on House Bill 1273. Thank you. Thank you so much. Committee members, what questions do you have for this panel? Okay, I do see some hands. Rhett Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Wood, or I know we had a few folks from Uber who could feel free to jump in. I think it's important to be clear that when we make policies in this space to help workers in a broken economy, we need specifics. And I understand that the pay is not all profit. But earnings reports are public, and these earnings reports show that there's $10 billion in profits in 2024 after expenditures. Revenue was about $44 billion. The $10 billion in profit is after all expenditures. Excuse me, no clapping or making sounds in the committee, please. The $10 billion in profits is after all expenditures, which includes pay for drivers. It also includes hundreds of millions spent defeating laws designed to protect drivers, 34 million in CEO pay. So if we passed this sort of predictability for drivers at 20%, will that $10 billion number drop by $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion? Specifics about that would be helpful to us because I heard openness from the sponsors on changing what the take rate is. And so if the math doesn't work at 20%, where would it work? Let's go to Mr. Hartfeld or Mr. Avalos from Lyft and Uber. Who wants to take that? I'm happy to start. Mr. Hartford. I haven't, as you said, Representative, the SEC filings are public, and you're welcome to dig through those. I would emphasize a few points. One, I've heard a lot about how this will raise pay for drivers. There's actually nothing in this law that requires higher pay for drivers, right? The only way it increases pay for drivers is by increasing pay for riders. In theory, someone could actually lower prices here and just pay drivers less So I would start with that I think we should probably level set that this actually doesn require anyone to pay drivers more The second thing I would say is the take rate varies on a trip by trip basis So on about a quarter of trips, Uber actually loses money in Colorado. And the reason we do that is we want to make some trips. You can think about a trip that goes to maybe a suburban or exurban part of Denver where the demand may be less reliable. We might increase the fare on that trip a little bit more. But we don't want to pass that cost on to the rider. Right. We don't want to punish someone for having to take a trip to exurban or suburban Denver. And so on those trips, the take rate might be a little bit smaller. And then other trips, they might be a little bit larger to subsidize that smaller take rate. And so just instituting a blanket cap will will inevitably mean that those trips have to be paid priced way more. And then, as we've said before, you know, I think we would look to shift all of the commercial insurance costs which are mandated by the state. And some of which, by the way, we are required by law to pay for drivers. So I would also say on the UMUIM, when we worked on that bill, that there was an impetus to make us pay for that. So we can't even shift that onto drivers. So this part of this bill sort of requires us to absorb costs that we're not allowed to pass on. And so the sort of understanding of what is the number, I think, misses the larger point of the fact that this idea as a whole is probably just not workable for us as a business. Okay. Ms. Avalos, did you want to add? Yeah, I mean, I agree with what Harry shared. I mean, regardless of how the split is calculated, any hard statutory cap is fundamentally just incompatible with how a TNC marketplace actually operates, right? Lyft's take rate is not a fixed number per ride applied uniformly to every ride. It fluctuates on a per ride basis in real time, responding to driver supply, rider demands, market conditions, surge prices. Some rides are higher, some are lower, balancing out across over thousands of trips. And so that dynamic flexibility is what gives opportunity for peak hour incentives, bonus zone earnings and competitive fares for riders. And so a statutory cap forces every individual ride to conform to a fixed ceiling regardless of the smart market condition. So it doesn't matter which side of the lever the cap is applied to. Constraints on either side of a dynamic equation with a static number eliminates that flexibility for us to make the model work. As it relates to the broader company profits, happy to find the most recent earnings report and share that information. I believe it's addressed in there, but I would hate to address it here without knowing the exact information, but happy to follow up. That may be. Thank you. I do have a quick follow up because I don't really understand those responses in a market where we're living where two companies have a monopoly. And I bet tens of thousands of rides have happened just in the Denver metro area today. And so given that these platforms have become necessary for so many consumers, right, I don't understand how you would not be able to make money by setting a predictable pay rate for workers. I don't understand that point. I get that your current business model isn't that, but what I'm asking is an adjustment to the current business model. Having a monopoly in this market you still would be able to make I would think astronomical profits Okay Who wants to take that Mr Hartfeld or Mr Avalos I happy to start Again I would emphasize this does not create a predictable pay rate That's not what this bill does. This bill creates caps commissions. In no way does it create a predictable pay rate. I think for years, we've actually talked to members of the legislature. I'm sure CID, I don't know if Brian and Sandra are there. But for years, we've had conversations about what a pay standard could look like. But that's not what this bill does at all. Representative Mabry, I just want to echo that. This is not a conversation about whether or not we want to have a conversation about driver earnings or finding some kind of stability there. It's that the take rate application here just doesn't work on a per ride basis for the economics of the market. Okay, thank you for those responses. is eager to have conversations on what we can do to increase driver pay. Okay. Rep. Sheila Leder. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, well, I won't belabor the question because I was going to do a follow-up after what Rep. Mabry had to say. But this question is for Mr. Hartfield. So when a driver gets in a wreck while driving on the app for Uber or Lyft, no matter who's at fault, I know there's always, I just had an insurance bill, so I know there's going to be always an astronomical deductible there. So can you tell me who pays that deductible if they're driving while they're on the app? Is that the driver that pays the deductible or does the company pay that deductible? Mr. Hartfield? If there's an accident on our platform and the insurance and our insurance covers the government-mandated insurance, which is, I believe, 200 and 400 in uninsured and underinsured motorists and a million dollars in primary liability, I could double-check those numbers, we will cover. The insurance and us covers the deductible if our policy applies. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't catch that last part. If your policy allows, Mr. Hartfield. If the policy applies. If the policy applies. I do have a question for Mr. Hartfield and Mr. Avalos. What percentage of your income statement would you say is spent on the drivers out of all of the operating costs that you pay? Mr. Hartfield. I'm happy to go back and look at our SEC filings. I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but again, most of that information is relatively public in our SEC filings. Mr. Avalos. Respectfully, I'd have to answer the same. I'm happy to provide that information following this hearing. Yeah, that would be great. We really would like to see that. Oh, Webb Kilty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think my question is for Mr. Hartfield. And I appreciate the answer for the promos not coming out of the pay because that was something that kind of caught my attention that I wasn't so happy with, so I'm glad you clarified that. But my question is, and for me, knowledge is important. You know, I was in the military for a long time, So what I know beforehand is always better. So are the drivers, when you're hiring, or not hiring, when they're coming to you wanting to work for you, are the drivers aware of the requirements, the job details, pay structure before they start work with you, with your company? And if so, is there training on this so they further understand? Who wants to take that? Mr. Highfield or Mr. Avalos? I'm happy to start. We do provide a module for drivers who are onboarded to understand what the offer card looks like, how to sort of go pick up passengers, what the drop-off experience looks like, so they can sort of see that before they ever take a trip. And, you know, I think when the drivers are referring to, drivers are able to sort of stop and work however, stop and start however they want. And much of the information we provide drivers up front in the offer card, it's actually mandated by Colorado law already. Okay. Do you have a follow-up? Okay, Mr. Avalos, yes. No, just I was going to repeat the same thing. We have an onboarding process that allows individuals to fully understand the expectations on the platform and otherwise go through earnings and things of that nature. The only other piece that I'll note is that transparency in Colorado is already the law, right? SB 24 075 already requires that both riders and drivers can see both the fare and the earnings. And so this was just implemented in February of 2025. It should be given time to work before imposing caps that would do more harm than good. This was to give us the insight and the ability for the public to see, you know, what folks are paying, what folks are earning. Okay. I'm glad you said that, Mr. Avalos. So basically with the new law that has just come into it being active, we'll be able to get more data. But I think the true question that everyone wants to know is what would it take to give the drivers a higher portion of the fare so that their part or their portion of this will increase. What suggestions do you have? What kind of conversations can we have around that? Mr. Harfield or Mr. Avalos, both of you, yes. I'm happy to start. I think, again, we should just level set that. Having a higher percentage on a one specific trip will not equate necessarily to higher earnings. It's the only way to make this proposal work and equate to higher earnings for drivers is to significantly increase the price for riders. That is like a mathematical certainty. If you want to do that, if this is the method by which you want to increase driver earnings, that is the mathematical certainty. I think we've, you know, again, I don't know if Sandra or Brian are in the room, but for years we've tried to have conversations about what a pay standard could look like, how we could make that work. they unfortunately haven't gone anywhere, but I don't think a take rate cap will achieve the goals that the legislature is looking for and will likely backfire. Because again, on a third, on a quarter of all these trips, we're actually losing money, right? And so we will have to fundamentally restructure the pricing structure, and that will mean higher cost for riders, probably fewer drivers because of this commercial insurance costs. And it won't do what I think the legislature is hoping to achieve here. Well, we understand that you don't agree with the 28, the 80-20 split, which of course that's, I don't, you know, yeah, it's probably not going to work. But what would you say would work to increase? Is it only a higher price increase on your ridership? Is that the only thing you can think? Is there more ways of being efficient? You have app technology, you have all these things What can you do to improve your bottom line so that more maybe can be pushed toward the drivers Yeah again Representative we happy to have a conversation around what driver earning standards could look like We've engaged in those conversations in the past. This mechanism, a take rate mechanism, just won't get us there. And so what happens is, as ride costs increase 25%, 50%, the amount of rides, of course, will go down. Affordability becomes an issue. Folks with all kinds of needs no longer have access. to those rides. However, that doesn't reduce the fixed costs that the company has around insurance contracts that have already been signed, around other costs to manage the actual application. So putting a take rate cap actually puts a bigger squeeze on the margins. Therefore, again, increasing rider costs, decreasing driver earnings. Another thing noted was during the conversation that this could possibly be appealing for some folks, right? The per ride earnings could seem like significantly higher. That said, folks are likely going to be waiting around longer, have longer wait times between rides. And we've seen this happen in Seattle, right? Where ride costs increase so much, rider demand drops significantly. More drivers join the platform because they see it as a potentially increased earning opportunity. And it just increases wait times overall, decreases earnings overall for drivers because there's less work. And so we're happy to share articles of how this is showing up in places like Seattle, drivers talking about, you know, driver caps and other things of that nature. So it doesn't, this would not lead to ultimately addressing driver earnings. It just put tighter constraints on the margin. So unfortunately, a take rate is just not the right mechanism to address driver earnings. And by the way, I'll remind folks, you know, during engaged time, drivers are earning on average $35 an hour, which is. Okay, please. Again, please keep your comments low. Okay. Okay. And thank you for that. But please think about what you can propose to give the drivers a better rate. That's what we're looking for. Next question is going to go to Rep English. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we know that there is opposition here on this bill for this current panel. But my question is, what evidence do you have that suggests the goal of this bill cannot be achieved? Who wants to take that? like has there already been any instances where you know for sure that this particular model or goal of this bill cannot be achieved or is there just opposition because of potentially having to give drivers more money for the rides Mr. Hartfield, I saw your hand go up. Yeah. There's nowhere in the U.S. or Canada, I believe, that I've ever done anything like this, largely because, as Francisco alluded to, there are these fixed costs associated with rideshare. And so in order to make this work, you would largely have to shift those fixed costs onto drivers in the term of having them buy their own commercial insurance, having them take on more costs. And we know that in places like Seattle where they have this very very high wage law which is actually much less draconian than what is being proposed in Colorado We seen some of the highest fares slowest ride share growth and fewer trips for drivers So the end result has been to backfire. And that bill, by the way, low increased prices, even less than what we expect this bill would increase them by. OK, Mr. Avalos, did you want to add to that or no? Nothing else to add. Okay. Rep. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we keep getting the Seattle model thrown back, but, you know, again, my understanding that was a minimum wage. If we have a shared revenue and it's true net revenue, I'm having a hard time understanding how that can't be made to work because the drivers are the only ones that seem to be having to deal with variable costs. If the ride is 50 miles rather than 5 miles, the variable cost for the rideshare companies, it's the same cost, but the costs increase for the driver. so it would seem like it would just be a fairer business model if they shared in the increased revenue for the longer rides at the same rate. So can you try and explain to me why I'm not looking at this correctly? Yes, I so. The costs aren't fixed. They're fixed at a per-dollar amount, like on a $10 basis, but insurance costs are variable, right? The longer the trip, the more mileage, the higher the insurance costs. Credit card fixed costs are somewhat fixed, but they're fixed on the total dollar amounts, you know, 2%, 3% of $10. And so as the cap gets tighter and tighter, the need to grow prices is exponential. I'm happy to walk through the math, but I know I'm half on time. I don't want to warn people. Okay, I see a hand there from Ms. Lynn Reed. yeah i just wanted to make a comment that in seattle we didn't we weren't working with a um a rate split like this but we were working with a minimum pay standard and we were on a good track and unfortunately um uh other influences got in and what happened was they added on so many, you know, like cost of living and operational costs and everything that the minimum pay floor, which we agreed to, was standard. We were looking at like $22.50, if I remember right. It's been a little while. Went up past, you know, $29 an hour. And And so that negatively affected our area because it was outrageous in how far it went up, how fast. And that is what the 80-20 split is going to look like or worse based on our drive-forward calculations. And like I said, this greatly impacted ridership, driver's income, and had the unintended consequence of not doing what it wanted to do. Had they considered a reasonable pay floor, I think that we would have come out really, really well in this situation. It would have still allowed Uber and Lyft and other TNC companies to add surge and bonuses and incentives And we seen those dramatically decrease in our area because it was way overshot So I just wanted to add that. Thanks, Ms. Reed. And Reverend Marshall, you're going to do a follow-up, and that's going to be it for this panel. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the follow-up because it's based on something she said, Madam Chair. So, I mean, what I'm hearing you say is you wouldn't have a problem with the $22 or $24 floor. You said you were willing and working towards that in Seattle, but it got out of hand and got up to $29.30. But you were good with $22.00. Is that correct? Ms. Reed. Did you hear the question? I'm so sorry. I'm still having feedback issues, so I had my volume turned down.
Could you please repeat that? Okay. Red Marshall, we don't have a lot of time left. Yeah, again, I heard you say that you were good in Seattle with about a $22 floor, but it got out of hand and got up to $29 and the like, and that's what was crushing the market. But why would we not accept a $22 floor here then? miss re the 80 split is not creating a floor it's creating a cap so what that's doing is that's capping what what drivers can earn on a ride when you say 80 20 split the drivers can only earn 80 of that fare and like um mr hartfield had mentioned uh there's nothing to keep companies from lowering rates. And I don't know, you know, crazy things happen when you start to over-legislate what companies can operate within, right? So what I'm saying is that if you guys were looking at a floor rather than a cap, I think that would, you know, possibly lead to better negotiations for drivers. Okay, thank you so much.
This is all the time we have for this panel. Thank you for being here. We're going to call the last panel up. Oh, please mute yourself. Thank you. The last panel is going to consist of Ms. Nina DeSalvo, Ms. Becky Davis, Mr. Brian Lassine, Ms. Maria Zantikofa. I'm sorry, I'm messing up your name. Mr. Mison Jitu and Ms. Kristen Forsythe. Okay. Who would like to start? When we start on this end, Ms. DeSalvo.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nina DeSalvo. I'm an attorney and the policy director with Towards Justice. I'm here today to encourage you to support House Bill 1273. This bill is about pay predictability for rideshare drivers and about protecting rideshare consumers from price gouging. This bill would create a simple protection. It would require rideshare companies to pay 80% of each fare to drivers. So on a $50 ride to DIA, a driver should receive $40. Although that is much more than the $18 or $20 fares that drivers are currently receiving for such rides, this bill is not about raising driver wages. And that's not because they shouldn't be raised. They absolutely should. But this bill is about ensuring that driver wages are predictable and about preventing rideshare companies from paying drivers through gamified bonus and incentive structures that exploit their financial vulnerability. Studies show that today rideshare companies take, on average, about half of each consumer fare. And on rides to and from the Denver International Airport, they take far more, up to 70% of each fare. Because drivers don't earn much per ride, the companies then use bonus and incentive compensation to top up driver wages. So what's the problem? These bonuses and incentives are used to control drivers and to convince them to take unprofitable and inconvenient rides. That is because per ride take rates are so low, drivers are so financially desperate that the companies can offer relatively small incentives to big effect. For example, dangling $5 in front of a desperate driver can convince him to accept 10 consecutive unprofitable rides. Or promising an extra $2 surge can get a driver out to Red Rocks where he has to sit in traffic for 45 minutes to get a fare. In this way, rideshare drivers are using abusively low per-ride pay to manipulate driver behavior, to force them to work when and where the companies want. But what drivers need is predictability. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Osabo. Please stand by for questions. I'm going to go next to Ms. Maria. Is that you? No. Oh, okay. Please introduce yourself. You have two minutes.
My name is Becky Davis.
Okay. Oh, please, your microphone needs to be turned on. Okay, thank you.
So a lot of, my name is Becky Davis, and a lot of what I wanted to say has already been said today. And what she said is absolutely what is happening while we're working on the roads. We don't have a sense of how much a ride will be. So in the mornings, for example, they can offer me $13 to go two miles on a ride, but they can also offer me $14 to go to the airport. And it just really isn't fair. But they've done it continually over the years where they take a little bit more and they take a little bit more. and it becomes a mental strain on drivers and I would like there to be a change. And that's really all I have to say. It's just like when you come here into session, you have read the bills that have been brought before, but you're doing that in the background. You're doing all of that in the background. As drivers, we do a lot of stuff in the background. We're cleaning our cars, we're getting our gas, we're waking up early, we're making sure that we're alert, we've got coffee. We're doing all of that in the background. We're making sure our car is functioning properly, and all of that comes out of our pockets. So just because we don't see you working and if you're not here at the table, doesn't mean that you're not working. But we are working in the background and this active hour that they always bring up Well the active hour is an hour Well that may be true That may be true But there is so much effort that goes into that one hour And the only other thing I would like to say that they mentioned, you know, he said that they pay the deductibles. They don't. They charge us $2,500 for an accident, whether it's our fault or not.
Thank you. Mr. Mijun Jitu, is that you? Please introduce yourself.
My name is Karim Sawadu. I'm replacing...
Okay, please speak into the microphone. Make sure the light is green on your plug.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and member of the committee. My name is Karim Sawadu. I'm Uber and Lyft driver for the last 10 years. I have over 40,000 rides for both companies, and I've been working like 60 hours a week. And right now I'm working over 80 hours a week. And the worst part, I'm putting over 120,000 miles, 120,000 miles a year. And I'm making way less than, I'm making less than half of my 60 hours income before. Right now, more drivers rely on the government benefits such like food stamps, government housing, insurance, Medicare to survive. When Uber making record profit, donating million dollars to like politician campaign, it's so unfair that Uber and Lyft take up to 60, 70 percent of the fair price. when I'm paying everything, gas, toll, cleaning my car, maintenance, everything. I'm begging you to vote yes on this bill. Your yes vote on this bill is freeing 45,000 drivers of Colorado from modern slavery. Thank you.
Thank you. Please stand by for questions. Ms. Forsythe.
Hi. My name is Kirsten Forsythe, and I'm here representing the Colorado AFL-CIO. in support of HB 1273. I've worked on transportation network policy for almost 10 years now, so I want to take you back in time. In 2014, I was chief of staff for the Senate Democrats when Uber was issued a cease and desist order from the PUC. They started operating in the state with no legal authority. The legislature then decided to create a separate regulatory scheme for TNCs, forcing taxis out of the business, which were highly regulated. The taxi drivers were making a good living. Now, not so much. In 2014, the biggest selling point used during the debate was how, as independent contractors, these individuals would be able to not just make a living, but thrive, even part-time. Instead, it has been a nightmare for some, particularly those relying on this as their full-time employment. Transportation network companies want it both ways. They consider these drivers independent contractors, but instead of being simply a platform that facilitates a transaction between the driver and the passenger, the TNC is the gatekeeper, or in other words, an employer. They determine the amount charged to the passenger. They determine which drivers receive an offer. They determine how much the driver will be paid. Whether a driver is making versus an hour it irrelevant at this point It is not the business of Uber and Lyft to determine for an independent contractor yet they do As Rep Wilford quiz pointed out independent contractors cover all expenses that employers typically pick up Taxes, health care, vehicle mileage reimbursement, workers' compensation, let's not forget that one, employment insurance, rest break, and retirement. So what is a dollar amount per hour that compensates for all of that? It's none of our business. The reality is these guys are independent contractors, unless Uber wants to call them employees. Thank you.
Thank you. Committee, questions for this group of witnesses?
Brett Mabry, Brett Riding. Thank you. My question is for anyone on the panel. Ms. DeSalvo may have some legal expertise here, but also curious what the driver's experience has been. Corey Doctra wrote about how Uber's business model reflects something that we heard in the testimony earlier, which is when new drivers first start using the platform, the incentives are higher. They're more likely to be paid in an attempt to keep the drivers on the platform. he sort of split out the model and indicated that from there, things like how quickly a driver accepts a ride and if a driver is more selective about a ride can also determine how much they're paid, meaning if they're quicker to accept a ride, they might be paid less. I'm curious from Mrs. Salvo if you have any information about the phenomenon that I'm talking about and then to the drivers. I know we've heard about the pay being higher when you first start. Curious if you've experienced any of the phenomena I've described. Mr. Seibel. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rup Mabry, for the question. A study in 2018 that I think was financed by Uber and done by Stanford and the University of Chicago looked into that issue and found, for example, that female drivers in the ride share industry on the Uber platform earn about 7% less than male drivers. And the claim was that that's not related to discrimination. It's related to how female drivers interact with the app, whether they want to accept rides to more dangerous neighborhoods, whether they want to drive late at night. So driver behavior on the app clearly ends up impacting what they're able to earn. I don't know if that's responsive. Is there a follow-up? It was responsive. I also was wondering if you were aware of any of the research that suggests that another way that pay differentiates is indications that you might be more willing to take more rides in a way that suggests you might be more desperate for money. And then I was curious from the drivers if they've experienced these sorts of things.
Okay.
Mr Savo and then you Yeah I a driver and what I can say is they watching the drivers look at your financial situation When your car loan payment is due, when your mortgage payment is due, and they know how much you have on your bank account, based on that, your rate is going to be lower and lower. When you have an overdraft on your bank account, they know you want to bring it to the positive. No matter how much, $10 from the airport to downtown, when the customer pays $75, you will take it. It gets to bring your account to the positive. So I have a question. How would they know that your bank account is in overdraft? They control everything. They deposit your money to your bank, and with the silver lines they have on the system, they know everything about you. Yes? I just wanted to add. What he's saying is they have some agreement with a debit card, and a lot of drivers use that because they get certain benefits, reductions in gas, and things like that. So their pay comes onto the card, and it doesn't go into the bank. It goes to a bank, but it's the bank that they're depositing to. I see. So that credit card then shows all your receipts and then also your deposits. Yes, and what your balance is. Got it.
Okay, Rev. Ryden.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Could you say more about the $2,500?
Yes. if we are in an accident regardless of who's at fault we pay $2,500 up front now if it's determined that the other party was 100% at fault then they will go back and try to recover that and give that back to us but out the door immediately the $25 is out of our pocket and it used to be $1,000 but it went up several years ago to $2,500
Thank you for allowing me to have a follow up on that.
So few of our neighbors even have $1,000 saved in their bank account. There's research suggesting 70% of Americans have less than $1,000. So what happens if you don't have the $2,500? If you don't have the $2,500, your car won't be repaired. They will not assist you. Even most of the time, yes, you won't be covered. Sometimes you even have a customer on the car involving the accident. They're asking for $2,500 and they decline to repair your car. But we say, oh, we covered the passenger, now you the driver. So we don't really know what the insurance purpose is for. They tell you on the paper if you get into an accident with a passenger in your car, no matter if you are at fault or you ride, we cover you. But it's not true. No matter what, you still got to pay the $2,500. If you don't have it, forget it.
Okay.
And you had something to add? Yeah, there's three parts of the insurance. There's A, B, and C. A is when they say, here's a ride for you. and during that time you're covered by your own insurance, your own personal insurance. They do not cover you at all. Part B is when you're on your way to the passenger. They cover that. And part C is when the passenger is in your vehicle. So part A, we are completely covered by our own insurance. insurance, we can't even submit a claim, they'll bounce it right back to us and tell us to go through our own insurance policy.
Okay.
Fred Keltie.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you everyone for being here. I have a question.
I asked Uber and left earlier, so I thought I'd ask you the same question, just kind of get the same, hopefully the same answer. So when you're taking the job with Uber or Lyft, do they make you fully aware of, you know, all the requirements, the tools that you need, the type of, you know, the age of the car and the gas and the, you know, all your expenses that you're going to be doing? And is there a training that, you know, kind of like this is what's expected of you to, if you're going to work with our company, this is expected of you and this is what we do for you? Do you understand that when you're taking on the job? Who wants to answer that? I'll answer it. Thank you. Basically, when you sign up, you're getting all your documents. That's really all they care about, is that if you're able to drive and you're legal to drive, that's it. And then they do the background check, and in a few days, you're approved. You get no training. Now, they have modules in Lyft. I don't believe Uber has any. Of course, it's been a while. But Lyft does have modules. But they don't, if you've never driven and had to use the app before, there's not like maybe a tutorial that says, okay, let's do a drive. You know, these are the buttons you push and things like that. These are the options that you can have. A lot of drivers don't know that they can decline rides, for example. for example. They think that they'll be pushed off the platform if they don't take every ride. So then you have new people coming on trying to earn money, you know, as a side gig to start, probably, and they're taking everything. They're taking really terrible offers because they know they don't know. They know that they don't know what they're making. At the end of the day, the money will accrue, but they don't know what's a good ride and a bad ride.
Okay. Rep. Sheila Lita, and then last question from English.
So I didn't catch your name, the lady who just spoke. Becky Davis. Thank you. So I just literally asked Mr. Hartfield, the question is when a driver gets in a wreck while driving on the app, who pays that deductible? And he literally said they paid the deductible, but now you're telling me that you pay $2,500. I don't know if Mr. Hartfield's listening, but I have a really problem with that. So my question is that how many times has this happened? Do you know of others? Because that's very, very disturbing to me that Mr. Hartfield just lied to me basically, saying that the company pays the deductible because now I want to know how I can hold his feet to the fire on that because you guys have to pay that deductible? Sure. Only if the other party is found 100% at fault, then they will go back and retract that deductible for you. But if you're in an accident and you're driving for them, it's $2,500. Like I said, it used to be $1,000. About five years ago, it was about $1,000 deductible. Now it is $2,500. So unless And it also a big hassle because sometimes you can go back to your regular insurance company and they say well you need to go to Lyft or Uber because that who was insuring you at that point C or point B But if you're in point A, then they do have, your own insurance has to cover it. Okay.
Rep, I'm going to do one, ask Mr. Savo to talk very quickly because this panel is over time and then Rep. English will get the last question. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had one quick point that I think is responsive to Representative Kelty and maybe a little bit to Representative Mabry's earlier question about both like a driver understanding of expectations and whether or not those expectations change over time. I think the problem is that it's very hard for drivers to know what the expectations are because they do change over time. We've seen many drivers when they begin driving, they earn 80% of the consumer fare. And that amount goes down, particularly if they start spending more hours driving on the app. So we see sort of the terms and conditions of the employment changing over time as drivers become more reliant, more dependent, more vulnerable to exploitation on the app. No? Okay. Okay.
Right to chair, Camacho, we'll get the last question.
I'm sorry, I know we're over time, but you said something that piqued my interest. Can you explain that a little bit better? You said initially you're seeing 80%, and then as you go on, there's a penalty for continued driving? Mr. Savo. I guess the second part of that, is that in the terms of condition? Because you said it seems to be a dynamic term, so more explanation would be helpful. Mr. Savo. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Yes, please add your perspective. Like when you're a new driver You sign up today We're going to tell you Hey, pick up 80 rides We will give you $2,000 And every ride You're not going to get a ride Going to the airport Less than $30 for your first week Next week after you completed 75 rides They know they have 5 rides going to the $2,000 That's when the problem started You will see $12, $8. Last week I see $9.5 coming to Martin Luther King Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard from the airport. And they're not consistent. And what they do is the more you drive, the more penalty you get.
Ms. Vice Chair, Camacho.
So what I'm hearing is that it is a feature of kind of an incentive to start riding and then in practice. That's what we're seeing, not necessarily a contract with dynamic terms that is changing in real time, right? Mr. Saval. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question, Representative. Yeah, I think this goes to the issue that a professor at the University of California in Irvine, Vina DuBall, calls the gamblification of work. And I think that's sort of like the fundamental problem that this bill is attempting to address, that right now drivers have like no ability to predict how much they'll earn. And they don't know, based on the fair setting algorithm, what determines how much they'll make. Will they be offered $9 to drive from downtown to the airport or $25? They don't know, and they don't know what attributes of themselves or their behaviors alter or change that. And I think fundamentally the idea of this bill is that no one should be playing Russian roulette with whether or not they going to be able to pay rent They should have some baseline understanding of how much they will be able to earn on these apps when they start and that baseline understanding should be able to continue through time So I don know if that responsive. Yeah, thank you. It just doesn't sound like there's predictability at all, and it seems like you penalize the more rides you take, and that's, yeah, that's awesome. Anyways, that's a comment. But thank you so much for coming. I'm going to make a
last call for the witnesses. Is there anybody in the room who wanted to testify on this bill who did not get to testify? I'm seeing a lot of hands. Did you guys sign up? If you didn't sign up and you've been here, okay, you can come up. Why don't you guys come up? Oh my God, that's too many. Oh my God. I don't know what to do. Huh? Okay. Okay. Oh, I'm going to take panels of four people. So the rest of you just stand by. We're going to go through. Okay, please go and sign up while you're waiting. Oh, okay. Okay. We'll get your names. Okay. So I have some witnesses in front of me. Why don't we start on... You ready to start? Okay. Please introduce yourself. You have two minutes to give us your testimony. And make sure your microphone is turned on. So there's a plug. There's a gray button right in front of the plug. The plug. Yeah, there you go. Make sure it's green. It has to be green. Microphone check? Yes. Okay. Thank you guys for taking the time out to talk to us. My name is Bradford Parker. I've been a member of the CIDU for a while now. As a driver, we see 55 to 65 percent for drivers. That is a decrease from that TNCs advertised a few years ago to saturate the market with drivers. That was 80-20 split. Once they reached that point, they consistently lowered the percentage of the fare. Drivers need more of the fare that the riders pay. Uber should get 20% and the riders should get 80% of the money. I've been doing this for about 10 years, part time. I would work overnight and then I would do this. So so basically what happens is the more that you work, the more you get penalized for working. And usually what happens is they're just following the algorithm, however you say algorithm. Yes. So they basically control how much you get based upon how much time you put into the job. So the amount that is currently being paid out to individuals who are actually performing the work does not compensate for the amount that goes for maintenance, gas and et cetera. So for example I drove today and for four hours of work I made right However that not before they take their fees out or whatever for the day So once you take out all of the fees and the insurance and the gas, it's minimum wage at best. Okay. Thank you so much. Please stand by. Next witness. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Chris Bonham. For 12 long years, I've been working as a driver. At one point, I had to do it for a year while I was stuck trying to find another job. When I first started out, I could make a decent living, even on part-time. I can remember making $600 on average just for driving maybe 20 to 25 hours a week. by this point for that same amount of time I'm lucky if I could get 100 behind me there's a lot of other drivers who go through the same thing and I see it in my capacity now as an organizer with Color Independent Drivers United these men and women they're putting in 12, 14, 16, 18 hours a day just to break even and if I was to be honest with myself every time I hear Lyft and Uber speak about how they're making $35 an hour, I find that outrageous because I'm seeing the polar opposite. My best guess, I'd say on average, I pull in maybe $8 to $10 an hour when I'm out there driving. And that's the most I might see on average. I see a lot of low offers come through in the work there. I've absolutely seen what Bradford here spoke to. I've seen it where I might get six or seven $5 ride offers in a row, get one $20 offer, and that's it. I just searched this committee to pass this bill and help us drivers out. The reality is we're being exploited by Uber and Lyft, and the only reason that's even done is because the executives don't know how to manage their own money. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Sir? Hi, my name is Moshe Ben-Yahuda. I've been driving since 2017. I'm sorry. Can you say your name and also if you represent anybody or if you're just representing yourself? I'm with the union, and my name is Moshe Ben-Yahouda. I've been driving since 2017, September 2017. Sorry to be a stickler. Can you just tell us which union you're with? I'm with the Colorado Drivers' Union. Thank you. Please proceed. I just want to say this. we are actually doing 80% of the work. We're doing 80% of the work. Now, I have numerous health issues, so this is the reason why I do this. I can't just work a regular job. This is my primary income. And what Uber and Lyft are doing is reprehensible. We should be getting 80% of the fare. I just looked at this past week, what I made. I made 46% of the total fare. Only 46%. I'm struggling. My Social Security is not enough. What I'm seeing here is just my income going down. When I first started, I was making about 75% of the fare. Now I'm making barely 46% of the fare. This is not fair. So I'm asking and urging everyone to pass this bill. We need this help. so I would just ask you to do this this is the right thing to do thank you thank you sir please hold for questions sir it's your turn please tell us your name and who you are with or if you're representing yourself my name is Taylor Newsom I am representing myself as a private citizen I have been driving for ride-tour companies for over a decade now with over a million miles on the road and almost 40,000 passengers split between the two. Although I came here to support my drivers and for this bill, I am literally the only one that's going to tell you the truth that this bill is not going to achieve the desired results. The reason why is because you already have a company platform, third party by drivers that already pay drivers 80%. Do passengers use them? No. The reason why is because Uber and Lyft have decided we are going to bankrupt the transportation industry in Colorado. So when you wonder why you're down 60 million passengers for RTD, it's because they have decided to only price above a dollar or two more than RTD. Because of that, we as drivers do not get money. Whether the fee is capped at 20%, 30%, 40%, it doesn't matter. We are in this situation because you have failed. We literally need six words. Rise your drivers shall be paid this. Until you give me a bill that says exactly that, we will come back to you every single year with these exact same concerns. Because, for example, Lyft pays us already 70% of the fare. But if you're only paying us 70% of 20 cents, how am I still supposed to make money? Context. I am probably one of your most profitable drivers over this last decade. I have made over six figures. I was homeless. Then I found this. And because of my own self-determination and putting hard work, I have eight years of tax returns to prove to you. You can make over six figures, pay your costs, pay your health care, pay everything that you need to. When you write, write your driver, Shelby, pay this. When you don't do that, we are in the position we're in now where Uber and Lyft pays $12 to take you to the airport. Where if we were... Sir, thank you for your testimony. Your time has expired. Thank you so much for your time. I sincerely appreciate you all. Committee members, do we have any questions for this panel? Rep English. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for you, who just finished talking. What do you think white-shelled drivers should be paid? Sir? Very easily. There are many cities and statewide that have already answered this question. For the state of Colorado, however long the ride takes, that's how long we should get. That translates to around 90 cents to $1 per minute. If you want to include miles, that's about 20 to 25 cents a mile. Until you write those words, we're always going to have this conversation. You have to write, Bryce, your driver, Shelby, pay this. You've already done it for taxis. You done it for anyone else that rides with PUC If you go to the Denver International website right now it says from downtown Denver is zone A From the airport to there is that should be paid a driver Why are you letting them pay us $12? Because you haven't wrote those six words. Committee members, do we have any other questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. We'll call up our next panel. So we're a little bit in the blind here. So if you wanted to come up but you were asked to sign up, please raise your hand real quick. I'm already. You were able to sign up? All right, sir, please come forward. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir? I can't sign up, but I want to do that. We'll get your name when you come up here. Sir, I see that you're still working on signing in as a witness. Would you mind taking a seat behind you, and we can bring another panelist up? And then when you're done with the sheet, if you could just bring it back to the table, That would be much appreciated. All right. Thank you very much, panelists. Starting at my left with Miss, if you could tell us your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes. Yeah, there's a little green button. Yeah, perfect. Hi, my name is Min Sun Ji. I'm the executive director of the Drivers Co-op Colorado. We are here to support the House Bill 26-12-73. DCC is the largest driver-owned ride share company right here in Colorado. If you have not known about this, we are the only ride share company in Colorado that actually has a well-functioning on-demand app that serves large populations. We have 1,500 members with an additional 3,000 members on boarding. We launched our app in July 2025, and we have about 20,000 riders who have actually downloaded the app and utilized our service. Our goal is to actually provide workers with 80% of the fares. That's exactly what the bill states like to do, right? So we have a worker going to airports. Let's say it's $50. Our workers actually get paid $40. That's actually what is happening. So since July 2025, for the past six months, we distributed $200,000 to hundreds of workers. And this year, we expect to distribute about $1 million this year as we grow the ride volume. So that's an exciting moment. Of course, right now, we rely on grants. This project was incubated by a nonprofit organization called Rocky Mountain Inflation Ownership Centers. and monthly right now is about 2,000 rights a month, but we will actually get to 5,000 rights by the end of this year and we expect to break even by next fall with about 12,000 rights a month. When we hit that 12,000 rights a month, we are good. We don't need grants anymore. That is actually our goal. Our workers are much, much happier because this is their company. so what this means is that I know a lot of rider companies thank you for your testimony but your time has expired sir it your turn please tell us your name who you with and you have two minutes My name is Ahmed El Amrani I am a co driver I'm a lead driver, and I drive other platforms. So I see a lot of questions being asked here in this meeting. So I have the answer for all those questions because I was the first rideshare driver in Colorado as a left and Uber. so these two minutes won't give me the time to answer those questions but these companies before they have they said they would give 20% and 80% but now they said how can we do that so before they have employees and staff and they pay all that now they cut all that off so they can get the profit so for the accident if you get in an accident You get deactivated and you have to pay deductible. $2,500, it went up. So our insurance goes up. Our cost goes up. Gas goes up. So I have proved that a ride from downtown to the airport is $12 and $13 for 25 miles. Compared to the other companies, taxi will charge $75, limo $120. So everything is listed in a website of POC. so yeah I don't have enough time to answer because it is I will answer to all these questions that's been asked like she said why I'm continue driving I'm continue driving because I want to be a self-employer I want to work for myself I want to give reward what I'm do because I work 20 years for companies I never get reward I never get never get like reward or improvements in my position so that's why I work for myself I don't want to work for no way so So when the co-op came in, there was opportunity because that's a solution for these problems. So 20% to them and 80% it's fair for the drivers. So yeah, there is other questions. I'm sorry, sir. Your time has expired. Sir, please tell us your name, who you represent, or if you represent yourself. And you have two minutes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Vice Chair. My name is Pedro Castañeda and I work for CIW. Right now, I've been here because I'm working for CDUI for the last three months, and I saw a lot of drivers of Uber and Lyft struggle to pay their rent or even bring food because they have the only job driving for Uber or Lyft. So probably in my views, it's like this opportunity to get 80% for the drivers is better to keep those drivers through to get food on the tables of care families. Sir, thank you for your testimony. Please hold for questions, sir. Your turn. Please tell us who you are, who you represent, or if you represent yourself, and you have two minutes. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me and allowing me to come up at the last minute. My name is Ken O'Donnell, and I've been an Uber and Lyft driver for over 12 years. I'm also a member of the CIDU, and I'm currently also a driver for the Drivers Cooperative. I have worked closely in the past with Nina from Towards Justice in helping develop proper legislation for things like this. So I've done a lot of consulting work, and I consider myself a driver advocate. so the reason that I here today though is to it is more of a capacity for the drivers cooperative because the drivers Cooperative of Colorado already does what this bill does So for somebody or anybody including the representatives from Uber and Lyft to say that this doesn work or anybody else saying this doesn work it does work We take rides and we pay our drivers 80 percent. And in most cases, our riders actually pay less. So when Uber and Lyft stay up here and say, oh, we're going to more than double the cost of the ride. Well, that's because they very conveniently told you that it's all these mandated costs, all these mandated costs. They didn't say one word about profits because we know how much it costs to run a rideshare company. We know that insurance actually only pays per mile. It doesn't vary, but they vary it on every ride. And we know that because we do it every single day at the cooperative. So what I would urge you is that don't believe what they're telling you when it comes to their only cost is to raise prices. And if we want to raise prices, the co-op will still be able to pay their drivers 80% under this law, and we won't have to raise our prices. Thank you. Sir, thank you very much. Are there any questions for this panel from the committee? Seeing none, we will thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. We do have another person who's online. One last call around the room. Is anybody in the room who would like to testify not had a chance? Now would be your last one. Come and see before we close it. You got to see. Okay. All right. So, sir, are you for or against this bill? For. Okay. So this will be a mixed panel. Oh, we have some more folks coming up. All right, so this will be a mixed panel. Typically, we prefer in-person, but since I understand Mr. Lesane online is again, so we'll let him go, and then we'll come for you folks in the room. Is that okay? Okay. All right. Mr. Lesane's in support. Mr. Lesane's in support. Should be four. All right. I lied. Mr. Lesane, you're going to have to hold on. Since you're in support, you're going to... Back to the other line. So sorry about that. So since you are in support and we do prefer folks giving personal testimony, we'll defer to the folks in the room here. So sir, on the right here, if you could tell us your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes. My name is Stephen Lustig, and I'm an organizer and union rep with Colorado Independent Drivers United, CWA Quad 7. So I wanted to touch on a few things, particularly how the pay was a lot higher and it was much closer to 70, 80 percent pay rates before the pandemic. And since then, however, we've noticed customers getting charged more and drivers making a lot less. And that's very purposeful. Also happened to line up, not so coincidentally, with Uber and Lyft making huge profit margins now. Pretty much what happened was that they pushed the taxis to marginalized sides, and now they've taken over market share in the industry. Now they know that they can rip off passengers more, and they can underpay drivers. and I wanted to also touch on how the transparency law that we actually got passed a few years ago that some of the representatives from Uber and Lyft have mentioned. Well, they were fighting that then, just like they're fighting this now. And after we got the transparency law passed, drivers have been able to see really how much they're getting ripped off. And now even the passengers can see how much of their fare is going to the driver, and they thought it was a lot more. And they're saying, oh, most of it's going to the apps and the companies themselves. As was also touched on earlier, that a lot of drivers are on public benefits. that is the taxpayers of Colorado helping to supplement the funding for Uber and Lyft. When they underpay drivers, that means taxpayers have to come in and help them out. And we don't think that taxpayers should be funding multi-billion dollar companies. Thank you, sir. Your time has expired, but we appreciate your testimony. Sir, it's your turn. Please say your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes. introduce yourself there's eyes to months oh there you go perfect here um i've been driving with uber and lyft since 2013 i was a single father um i've given well over 52 000 rides between a second uh both companies i was raising my hand back there and i know this guy i got very very upset when you guys were asking about the 2500 deductible i have four kids i drive 16 hours a day, six to seven days a week to provide for my kids. I got hit by somebody in front of Ball Arena. I just bought a Model 3 Tesla and I was like, you know what? Uber Black's a good opportunity. I have a lot of health problems. I go, okay, I'll go drive. I'm pulled up against the side of Ball Arena after a Nuggets game. A guy that has no insurance, no registration, and a fake driver's license that uber willingly accepted sideswiped my model 3 tesla i had to come up with 33 000 out of my own pocket to fix my car because uber would not do anything for me so yeah it i wasn't gonna scream out but as soon as i heard you guys talking i had to raise my hand Uber does not protect us as drivers at all. Like I said, I've given 52,000 rides between Lyft and Uber. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Sir, it's your turn. Please tell us your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes. There's a little gray button. It should be to your left. This one? Yep, you're on. You're live. Okay. My name is Daniel Newmu. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I am a rideshare driver. I am here to support HB 261273. I have been driving as an independent contractor with Uber and Lyft for 5 years. I unfortunately have seen the constant degrees in taking home pay over here. Just a few years ago, Uber was still advertising a Sprite of 20 before 40 on the social media to recruit drivers. When I started driving, I would take home nearly 18% of the phone and they would take like 20%. After being established for more than a decade TNC also continued to take more of the ride pay The driver cost including the car payment car insurance maintenance tire and keeping the vehicle clean and attractive is essential to driving but there is not minimum compensation for that The market is saturated with ride share drivers, full and part time. This is an intentional act to make drivers compared to low payment file. Drivers will accept low payment rider for fear of not getting anything else within the next few hours. This causes a domino effect for... My name's Brian Lusane. I am a member of CIDU, also a member of CWA Quad 7. I am a very part-time Uber driver. I got involved with them because I saw when I first started about two years ago, I was making some pretty good money. And then after a while, the pay got less and less and less. And then also when we're out at the airport, Union Station, educating the drivers, I noticed something. There are drivers with pillows and sleeping bags in the back of their car. And I've seen people, their stories, they quit their full-time job based upon the first week, month of driving because they're making more money than what they were making before. Then when the pay goes down, they can't afford their mortgage. They can't afford the upkeep of their car. They can barely keep up with their car payments. And basically it's a trap. And this bill, giving 80% to the drivers, will alleviate this. This is Uber and Lyft getting themselves into this mess. If they were to pay decent fares to the drivers, we would not be here. They're the ones that created this problem. and this bill will solve it. This bill will solve, you know, giving these drivers unrealistic hope that this is their way to... Mr. Lussain, thank you very much, but I'm sorry your time has expired. We appreciate your testimony in sticking with us. If you could just hold on a little bit longer and we'll see if we have any questions. Members of the committee, are there any questions for this panel? seeing none thank you for your time and thank you for waiting i know it's been a long afternoon and we really appreciate it all right for reals this time anybody in the room last chance All right seeing none Oh we have one online Okay All right, we have one final witness. And it is, ma'am, I'm going to mess up your last name, so please forgive me in advance. Zanarakova? Ms. Zanarkova, if you can come off camera. Can you properly pronounce your name, because I'm sure I did not, and tell us who you represent? Oh, I was close. Okay. Well, thank you very much. You have two minutes, and please tell us what position you're taking and who you are, who you represent, and you have two minutes. Hey, so I'm more of a comment and something for everyone to think about. I am a driver. I've been a driver since 2014. So I have seen when both Uber and Lyft used to pay the 80-20 split. Now, my questions are more aimed at what is this going to, how is this going to affect the general public? Where is the cap when it comes time for the ride increase for the consumers? Because I too like to go out sometimes and take a ride share to a nightclub or a bar or even the grocery store. Now, if this passes, is there going to be a cap for consumers as to how much they are going to be paying for the increase that this might take effect in being? So those are some of my questions as well as where is this going to draw the line of the consumer promotional price that we saw and heard of earlier that gets taken out of the portions of the price breakdown that we see as you know, after the ride is done and over and I complete the trip when taking someone from point A to point B. I just want to know what is going to be happening with that. And is that going to be something that is going to be addressed later on? That is all. Thank you, Ms. Anakova. Committee members, do we have any questions for our last witness? Seeing none, Ms. Anakova, thank you very much for your testimony. The testimony phase is now closed. Madam Chair, it's back to you. Thank you, Vice Chair. I see the bill sponsors. What amendments do you have today? Okay, Rep. Froehlich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I believe you should be handed out Amendment 3. We think this is the best solution from the conversations that have been ongoing. this proposes the 80-20 split be calculated after the portion that goes to taxes, airport fees, those kind of fees, tips, pass-throughs. So we think this is a fair solution. It's the same bill. It's just a calculation post tips, taxes, and fees. And we ask for an aye vote on Amendment 3.
Before we do that, I'll move your amendment. So I'll move Amendment 3 to House Bill 1273.
Second.
The bill has, amendment has been moved and seconded by Rep. Leader. Are there any questions on this amendment? Rep. Kelty.
Thank you Madam Chair I just want to I think I know what it means I just want to clarify what I think it means and what you think it means So it says it says lines 11 and 12 substitute consumer pays for a transportation task excluding the TIPs So you're saying that this consumer is not going to have to pay the TIP, the pass-through, taxes, airport fees, and payments for a driver's support, organized, certified, whatever that is. but they don't have to pay for it. There's no tips.
Rep. Froelich.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Rep. Kelty. The reason you're reading it that way is because that's where it's inserted into the bill, but this whole formula is based on what the customer fare is. So we're saying from that customer fare, from what the consumer pays, so the consumer pays $88, bucks, take out these following things, and then calculate an 80-20 split.
Any other questions? Rep. Marshall.
Yeah, just to make sure, I mean, what we're trying to get to is a 80-20 split of the net revenue per ride, and I don't want to nitpick now, I'm thrilled with the amendment, but I I just want to make sure going forward that when we say taxes, we're also talking fees, any government fees, regardless of where those come from.
Okay. Seeing no other questions. Is there any opposition to this amendment? Seeing none. Amendment L-003 is adopted. Any other amendments from our bill sponsors?
No, Madam Chair.
Is there any amendment from the committee? Okay, amendment phase is now closed, wrapped up, wrap up. Rep Frelick, who wants to go first?
Thank you. Thank you, committee. I really appreciate your patience today. We were, we've been working with the drivers and understood that there would be one or two panels, And so it was an organic event, which I think is kind of cool. Unfortunately, we're an upon a German committee, so it's squeezed stuff. So we apologize for that. But we really want to thank the folks that showed up, whether we knew they were coming or not. And I think their testimony was very impactful. And I think, you know, a lot of it did circle around this idea of, you know, you're paid so terribly. Why do you do it? And I think we want to go back to that additional idea that the majority of our drivers are supplementing already a full work week. And what other job can you pick up extra hours on your own schedule and drive to make up that extra money? and the fact that so many workers need to supplement a full-time wage is really the ripple effect from what so many companies are paying in terms of a non-living wage. And I also think the drivers expressed what is a bit of a bait and switch in terms of you signed up and things are going pretty well and you're given bonuses and great fares. and then it tapers off due to this algorithm, which I don't really understand, but that's for the ride-share companies to know. Also, I just really want to... reiterate this is not the Seattle model and we're not dumb and we didn't want to do the Seattle model and we understand the problems that were encountered in Seattle. I want to say also if the fares are dynamic that a percentage makes even more sense in those cases because the percentage remains the same. The companies have not engaged with us and they don't care to engage with us but boy will they show up to kill a bill and we saw that last year and we saw it again today. I wish we could have a conversation about what that number was that they would accept, but we were told there was no number that would get them to yes. So we just think this is a, we recognize that this is a somewhat unique approach across the nation, but I don't think Colorado should have any problems being the first, and we ask for an aye vote.
Beth Wilford.
Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you to committee members who all have been incredible in terms of listening and asking really thoughtful and important questions. And I appreciate that because I know that this committee hearing has been a lot longer than so many of us anticipated. But I feel like the drivers and many of the folks that came to testify needed to be heard. I think in terms of the moment that we're in, we have these big corporations that make billions and billions of dollars annually, and we have drivers that are often not heard who came today and said, we want dignity on the job. We want to be able to make a living wage. We want to be able to predict what we are going to make on the job. And I don't think that that is asking too much. I think that's asking what we ask of literally every other employer. I wanted to share that I did a quick search because we did hear many drivers come forward and say that when they started driving for Uber or Lyft that they made, you know, that they received 80% of what they were, what the wages were, I'm sorry, what they were making. and I found a study that was recently completed out of the University of Oxford and they detailed the initial 20% cut of fares charged and how the cut has just continued to rise year after year after year and actually that study and all of the analysis that has been done is now the impetus for a major lawsuit in the United Kingdom and in Europe specifically about wage theft. Secondly, there's another case that I want to point you all to in California. There's a lawsuit about misclassifying workers, identifying Uber and Lyft as failing to meet their obligations as employers as required by labor law, by failing to pay drivers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, to pay overtime compensation, et cetera. And I think that what we continue to see is wage theft. And what we are looking to do specifically in this bill is to make sure that drivers are made whole and that they are able to make and earn a living wage. Representative Kelsey, you asked drivers, if you don't make money, why do you do this? It was a fair question. And what I wanted to share with you is in addition to what you heard in terms of responses there are also a majority of a large number of drivers who are individuals of color and are immigrants who are underemployed. And many of those immigrant drivers have advanced degrees. They are doctors, they are lawyers, they are nurses, they are engineers in their home country. But after immigrating here, their education and their experience is not recognized. And so they drive for Uber and Lyft to be able to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head. We heard a lot of conversation about dynamic pricing, about the algorithms, surge pricing, peak demand, but not a whole lot of answers from the company. Not a whole lot of clarity or transparency from Uber and Lyft. We got a whole lot of I don't know, let me get back to you, and then empty promises to have a conversation and explore options. And those options are things that never come to fruition. We have been open to other amendments. We have been open to exploring policy options. And there are no other policy options that either of the companies are willing to put on the table because they're just not workable. I will say we will continue to explore options and continue to be open to conversations and hope that they do come to the table. But this is a step in the right direction for Colorado, and this is a step in the right direction for transparency and a step in the right direction for workers across our state. So again, I want to thank everybody that came out to testify, in particular the drivers, especially the Colorado Independent Drivers Union for their incredible work. organizing and really elevating the issues of workers that so often go unheard. And we do ask for your aye vote today.
Thank you, Rep. Roach. Closing comments? Okay, Rep. Roach.
Sure, thank you. The fact that we ended up with, whatever it was, four hours on this, that shows that you're on to something, right? You hit a nerve. I love that so many folks came out and testified. I mean, that's really for me, especially I don't know if it's just because it came out of local government or what it is, but it's a testimony piece that I really enjoy the most. And you obviously have hit a nerve. There's something here. There's inequity that a lot of people are feeling and that we heard from today. And also just for one of your bill sponsors there that you're talking about, how it's tough when you know that you're just trying to get more than just a no. You're trying to work with somebody and trying to get something. You know that I'm dealing with a very similar situation where you're just like, hey, let's just try to meet in the middle. So a stone wall is honestly not acceptable. And there's a lot of that there that I find troubling. I guess what I find I take a little comfort in is that there are other companies that are looking to fill in the gap here, and that's important. And at the end of the day, that kind of speaks to my opposition of the bill because I think that this is something that the free market needs to correct, right? I am thrilled that there another company that is looking to get into this and do things the right way and to be more competitive because it is going to force the hand of the companies that are not doing it the right way to either lose their drivers and lose their business or to compensate fairly and do it the right way By mandating a certain amount of the 80 or whatever it is I do worry that at the end of it, we're going to eliminate jobs instead of trying to protect them. So again, you're on to something. This isn't the solution. I'm going to be a no, but I would imagine I'll probably hear some more at some point in the future.
Okay. Rhett Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing the bill, and thank you to the drivers for coming out and speaking in favor of the bill. I think it is really critical to just recognize that these multi-billion dollar profit-making companies that are monopolies and that so many Coloradans have become dependent on, those profits are only possible because of drivers. That $10 billion in profits that's extracted for shareholders is extracted from the labor of the workers. The $34 million that the CEO makes, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent against legislation like this, against ballot initiatives in other states, all of that is made possible because of the work of the drivers. So I think it is critical that in an economy where so many of our neighbors are living paycheck to paycheck, where people have to work multiple jobs to remain housed, as a renter's rights attorney, I represent so many people who drive Uber on the side in addition to whatever else they're trying to do to keep a roof over their heads. I simply do not believe with $10 billion in profits a year that these companies cannot find a way to make a profit with an 80-20 split when there were probably 30,000 rides flagged in Denver this morning. So I'm an enthusiastic yes.
Who's next? Red Riding.
Thank you, Madam Chair. so I was very undecided and on the fence before today and I wanted to stay very open-minded so I had been reading the different studies from that we had seen and I certainly am mindful of overhead I guess I come from the health care world and sometimes convenience is a cost and when I think of a TNC company I think of you know it does provide that flexibility to drivers and it's not unreasonable to ask for that convenience there to come at a cost of what you said was essentially 30% or so. But as we started doing the math, and that was very helpful for me, thank you, I disagree with my colleague over here. I actually don't think the free market can correct for this because there is some kind of lack of transparency that's happening in how the calculation happens. and I appreciate the bill that was passed in 2024 and some of you worked on that. I was not here then. I think that has drawn some awareness of what some of those are but it still is not getting at one of the problems which we just don't know what is causing such discrepancy and inequity and that makes it very hard. I think one of the things we heard was maybe this would help with predictability for the drivers. I don't think it will because we're still not going to see the more clarity in how it's pricing. So I have some ongoing concerns around that. I think we keep hearing that this will increase rider costs, and we certainly heard that from the opposition And I think that is definitely a possibility because we don know how to otherwise check for that except for what they're listing. And I will support this bill today, because I think it's a step in a direction to try to correct for something, and I look forward to seeing where it goes, and if it can solve for a little bit of what we're seeing and some of that inequity. Thank you for bringing this, and for all the witnesses who came today. That was very compelling.
Rep Brooks. I'm sorry, Rep Richardson. Sorry. It's okay. He only gets one shot at it. I know, right?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the sponsors and to the witnesses that came out today. I didn't ask a lot of questions. I did take a lot of notes. There's a lot at play here. This isn't the first bill that impacts TCNs that we've heard in this room this year. but kind of one of my over writing thoughts as we went into this is if we're looking at the financial condition of our state and our ability to run our business I just kind of sometimes question our position in telling other businesses how they should operate I totally understand the desire to make more money for what you do and I know I've heard a little testimony that hinges on this, but at the end of the day, this is an agreement that people enter into voluntarily. I don't hear anybody saying that they were forced to work for Uber and Lyft or for the co-op. It's voluntary. Even though some are very displeased, they continue to work for these organizations. and I do agree with my colleague that the co-op indicates that there's a free market solution that gets at some of these issues and we may see some balance in the market because of that. I did look at the $10 billion figure was tossed about a few times, so I did go and take a look at the financial reporting. It was a $9.7 billion net on a $52 billion gross, a number that's about the size of our state budget, give or take. But based on this changes of percentages, if we were to force a percentage, essentially what looks like a doubling of what the current percentage is, and this is global, not just Colorado, so I know there's going to be variances. By my private math, and I don't like doing public math, that would be about a $16 billion loss globally. The company's not going to just operate at a loss. It's going to change its model. And if that model means increasing prices and potential lowering of availability, then we're kind of back to the bill we heard earlier this year with what does that do for those that depend on these services, the blind, the disabled, those that testified that this was a life-changing capability that had come into their lives when Lyft and Uber moved in, the people that are making the decision to go out and have a good time and spend some money in Denver but not drive after drinking and the safety implications that could have. I know that our broken economy was mentioned. Again, I think we broke it here. We should not be putting on private businesses to try to fix what we've broken. So I don't believe we need this bill. The co-op is proving that the market is healing that. If the contention that this is wage theft is true, we have wage theft laws to address that. So I don't think we need this now. I do think that there's an issue, but I think it is an issue that's resolving itself in some manner. So for that, I am a no today.
Any other comments? Leader, did you? Red Marshall.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So my knee-jerk initial reaction was hell no on this bill because I'm just not a believer the government should be setting labor wages. But we are dealing with taxi services, and historically those always have become public utilities. and historically that's wound up because you've got to protect the public. We have safety regs, then we have minimum standards. It always winds up going that way for very good reasons. And the taxi services, too, wind up having the immigrants, their backup jobs, their interim, their supplemental, so nobody expects to get rich driving a taxi. but I looked up the New York City average tax wage, and it's about $26 an hour. So if we can push it up to $22, $23, I think that's probably appropriate because we are dealing with a duopoly and saying the free market will just automatically take care of it. There the first mover problem for any monopoly or duopoly of the massive amount of upfront capital which we dealt with the other day in finance with the net operating loss issues So trying to scale up to compete with Uber or Lyft, that may not be very likely in the near or intermediate term, even though long term that may happen. I don't see, and I told the business people of Uber and Lyft, if they could convince me this variable cost issue of their dynamic pricing, was an issue, but I heard nothing addressing that. And all the variable costs seem to be on the driver, not on the company. So for all those reasons, I'm a yes, especially with the amendment you graciously offered to make sure we're having a split of net revenue and not gross revenue after the government gets its share. So thanks.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this forward. And I especially want to thank all the drivers out there because I know you're losing money sitting in this committee room. And so thank you, thank you, telling us all your stories because that's absolutely what it takes. People need to hear the stories of what absolutely is happening because by what I just heard about from Mr. Hartfield in regards to the $2,500, and if they pay the deductible for insurance, it's really clear that this company is not trustworthy. It's really clear that they are not transparent. This company is horrific with transparency and honesty. for what I just heard, I am appalled by that. Because the drivers are not going to sit here and lie. They say differently as well as your wallets say differently. So with that, the lack of transparency and the comparison, the lack of transparency with that is just absolutely, these drivers need to be paid a fair share and they need to step up to the plate to do it I will absolutely be a yes And I also want to give a shout out for the co because the co has an app and it orange and yellow like I have on my phone I gladly show you all afterwards Thank you Vice Chair Camacho Thank you Madam Chair and I want to echo a lot of the committee members and their comments. I think Rep. Leader has a right. when you show up to testify, you're losing money. And I recognize that and I honor that. And I want to thank you for sharing your stories because I think it does make a difference. I was struck because I was having a conversation with my kids earlier. And I told them, you know, life isn't fair. Sometimes it sucks. And I hate that answer because that's not what we should resign ourselves to, especially if you represent community, if you represent, if you are in government, your goal should be to make life as fair as possible. and I think for me what was most persuasive was if you want to work and have an arrangement with one of these companies or anything else you should know up front what your trade-offs are how much you can expect to make because without that information you cannot make good decisions about how to spend your time how to spend that time away from your family and the gamification of work, I think one of the witnesses talked about, I have problems with. So for that, this is for my kids, for my community, for my district. We're trying to make life more fair, and I'll be a yes today. And for the bill sponsors, I've been really conflicted. I totally support the workers. I am aware of all the issues they've been facing. I've struggled with the whole 20 the 80 20 split we can dictate to companies you know what they going to do but we do need to find a way forward And when I asked the lobbyists representing the ride shares they did not have a proposal either. So we cannot just go on. Nobody knows. There has to be a way to find something that we can make it predictable. So I'm going to be a yes for today as we get it out of committee. Hopefully it brings them to the table and we can work something out that will be more workable because predictability is important. All the costs are going up everywhere and if you're going to work, do that. The dynamic pricing, I mean I know it's all about this algorithm but maybe they should start there. Maybe that's the issue. I don't know. What do I know? But I will say that that is an issue maybe. Anyways, but with that I'm going to be a yes today. Ms. Hiroja, please call the roll. I would like to move House Bill 1273 as admitted to the Committee on Appropriations. Second.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded by Rep. Leader. Ms. Haroja, please call the roll.
Representatives Brooks.
No.
English.
Yes.
Gonzalez.
No.
Kelty.
No.
Leader.
Yes.
Mabry.
Yes.
Marshall.
Yes.
Morrow.
No for today.
Richardson.
No.
Rydon.
Yes.
Sukla.
No.
Camacho.
Yes.
And Madam Chair.
Yes. The bill passes 7-6, and you're on your way to appropriations.