A test of civil rights enforcement and the gig economy's limits
The Department of Justice has sued Uber in federal court in Northern California, alleging the ride-hailing giant discriminated against riders with disabilities. The complaint says drivers refused service to people traveling with service animals, levied unlawful cleaning and cancellation fees, and blocked access to front seats needed to accommodate mobility devices. The DOJ is seeking $125 million for individuals who previously filed complaints with the company or the government.
The allegations and the blind spot in on-demand service
According to the suit, riders with disabilities experienced missed appointments, long delays, and were stranded in bad weather. A DOJ Civil Rights Division official said blind riders have faced repeated denials when traveling with service dogs. The government argues that these practices violate longstanding disability protections and that Uber must ensure equal access regardless of the variability of individual drivers.
Uber's defense and the compliance gap
Uber says it bans drivers from denying rides to people with service animals, requires assistance with stowing walkers and folding wheelchairs, and mandates compliance with its accessibility rules. The company disagrees with the allegations, notes a hotline launched in 2023 for service-animal denials, and says confirmed violations can lead to driver deactivation. The gap between policy and practice remains the core friction point in a vast marketplace of semi-autonomous drivers.
Enforce the law, avoid the sledgehammer
Equal access is non-negotiable, and riders with disabilities deserve prompt, reliable service. But a sweeping federal penalty risks punishing the entire platform and its law-abiding drivers while doing little to fix the point-of-service failures. A smarter approach couples targeted enforcement against repeat offenders with transparent reporting, real-time support for denied riders, mandatory training for drivers, and quick restitution. The aim should be narrow remedies that correct behavior without crushing the convenience millions rely on.
Regulation by lawsuit will not steer the wheel
This case lands squarely in the ongoing clash between Washington regulators and Silicon Valley platforms. If the DOJ pursues a settlement, it should prioritize measurable compliance tools over headline-grabbing checks. Accessibility can be strengthened with clear standards, faster remediation, and consistent discipline for violators. Rights must be enforced, but limited government demands we use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, to keep both liberty and access intact.
