r/stocks
国会正帮助 Uber 剥夺网约车受害者权利，以节省数十亿利润
限制网约车责任的法案可能为 Uber 节省数十亿法律成本，同时议员们披露了购买 UBER 股票。
- H.R. 8870 法案限制了基于应用程序的公司的替代责任，保护 Uber 免受大规模车祸和性侵诉讼。
- 减少法律索赔和保险成本将直接改善 Uber 的财务模型并节省数十亿美元。
- 议员们披露的 UBER 购买行为与该立法一致，表明该公司面临强劲的政治顺风。
- Uber 在联邦法院面临超过 3000 起性侵索赔，凸显了严重的持续法律和声誉风险。
- 责任保护条款面临部分众议员的反对，意味着该法案的通过并非板上钉钉。
美国国会正在推进H.R. 8870法案，即《为美国建设250法案》，这是一项重大交通法案，其中包含限制基于应用程序的交通公司责任的条款。对Uber而言，这些条款直接指向交通事故、性侵索赔、保险成本以及州级诉讼。与此同时，国会议员们也在披露他们购买Uber股票的情况，使其投资组合与可能使Uber估值提升的立法并列。
每次Uber乘车出问题，乘客或司机都可能就行程中发生的事提起法律诉讼。如果行程以车祸、袭击、严重受伤或死亡告终，诉讼范围可超越司机本人，延伸至搭建平台的公司。
这正是Uber一直试图缩小的法律风险，因为法律索赔、保险准备金和诉讼成本直接嵌入了公司的财务模型。2026年6月，众议院议员曾向党内领导人发出警告，称新交通法案可能让网约车公司免于承担车祸和性侵事件的责任。他们在信中直接点名Uber，并指出该公司在联邦法院面临超过3000起性侵索赔。
这一警告出现在众议员文斯·冯于5月21日提出对H.R. 8870的修正案之后，该修正案包含名为“网络公司的间接责任”的条款。该条款涵盖基于应用的司机、数字网络、预先安排的交通服务以及按需配送。众议院交通运输与基础设施委员会以35票对30票通过该条款，随后以62票对2票表决通过将整部法案提交全体审议。
Uber在2026年3月的游说注册文件中已用直白语言阐明诉求：将间接责任保护与地面交通授权法案挂钩。简单来说，Uber希望国会能在制定全国交通政策的同一立法过程中，统一处理责任规则。
4月份的申报文件进一步加剧了施压态势。Uber及其外部游说机构披露，第一季度在交通、汽车保险、诉讼、按需出行、自动驾驶、非紧急医疗运输、劳工分类、税收、食品配送、数据隐私及人工智能等领域，共投入约150万美元的联邦游说费用。
从联邦层面看，报告列出了众议院、参议院、交通部、联邦公共交通管理局、劳工部、能源部及其他联邦机构。这场责任之争只是更广泛议题的一部分——即如何监管基于应用的交通服务。
在此案中，与Uber相关的姓名难以忽视：南希·佩洛西、约翰·希肯卢珀、吉尔伯特·锡内罗斯和罗·卡纳均出现在交易窗口期内。南希·佩洛西刚刚披露了一笔价值50万至100万美元的Uber股票认购期权，行权时间为明年。
在49亿美元年度保险准备金基础上削减5%，相当于税前节省2.45亿美元；削减10%约为4.9亿美元；削减20%则接近9.8亿美元，几乎达到十亿美元。若市场将这些税后节省额按18.5倍盈利水平进行资本化，对应的股权价值区间将分别为约36亿美元、71亿美元和143亿美元。
So that’s why Pelosi recently bought
Spot on. It’s at the point where this bill is pretty much signed into law, and even though she as a Democrat opposed it, still bought through her husband
Hang on, this bill is NOT “pretty much signed into law”. It has been reported out of one committee in one chamber of Congress. It’s got a long way to go: the Ways & Means Committee hasn’t done it’s required part on the highway trust fund, Republican leadership hates the bipartisan rail safety language in the bill, and the rideshare liability language is in fact pretty controversial all by itself. Combine all that with the fact that the House has fewer than 30 voting days left this Congress, the three committees of jurisdiction in the Senate haven’t produced any draft language, and the election is likely to change leadership of at least one chamber—this thing ain’t becoming law anytime soon. (You could mention that Trump keeps actively blowing up ANY bipartisan legislation—like the housing bill he tanked today.)
Can this language become law? Yes. Is it imminent? No. Not close. Honestly my money is on 2029 at the earliest before we see a new surface transportation reauth.
So you're saying buy?
yea and don't get into stranger's van, especially if they offer candy or drinks. 🤔
They’re offloading all of their legal and insurance spending for the driver/passenger to decide. Their bottleneck currently is that they are liable for the driver they hire. With this bill they could technically hire folks with active criminal backgrounds or illegals and start blaming them if things go wrong
It doesn't make sense for the app to be liable unless it can be proven that the injury was caused by their negligence(IE failing to conduct background check on driver). The driver should be the one liable if they are the cause of the harm.
All of these tort costs just get passed onto riders.
Let’s put it this way. In the future, if this bill becomes the law there are two concerning routes:
1) Uber can technically start hiring folks with harsh criminal backgrounds and have no accountability for it
2) Uber, Waymo or Musk’s Tesla will have no liability for their driverless taxi if something goes wrong
They sue Uber because they are likely to get a bigger payout from them.
Full article I wrote here: https://politraders.com/blog/politicians-buying-uber-liability-shield
I make investigation into political pressure and lobbying
The US has deep problem with ambulance chasers. It ends up driving insurance cost through the roof which everyone ends up paying so a lawyer can make 100m off the pain of some random person.
Lol, kinda funny to watch you parrot this same drivel all over this thread as though it’s your job. Can I sue your employer for the brain damage we’re all getting reading this smut?
Of course Uber provides safety features — regards like you would sue them if they didn’t. That doesn’t mean that they’re at fault for driver actions they can’t control. The only reason Uber exists is to be a marketplace. Everything else is to accommodate whiny morons who can’t walk outside without a helmet
- Uber does not hire drivers as employees. They offer a platform that connects drivers and riders. Drivers are independent contractors. Plumbers are employees.
- Technically, the way the current law works, you can sue Uber for things that aren't their fault. But that needs to change.
Why Uber or any ride app company be held responsible for what the driver of the car does ? 🤔
This is a scam by personal injury lawyers 🥸
Not gonna lie, it always seemed crazy to me that a business could be liable because an employee went off the rails, outside the company’s control