Ban cancellations to favor higher-paying riders

Summary#

SB 1200 would amend Michigan’s Limousine, Taxicab, and Transportation Network Company Act. It would prohibit a driver and transportation network company from canceling an accepted ride request to give priority to a rider paying more; the bill’s title identifies that as its aim. The supplied materials do not include the current Act, so it is unclear whether the bill’s separate rule about accepting requests through the company’s digital network is new or already in force.

  • A driver could accept a transportation request only through the company’s digital network, under the text shown.
  • After a request is accepted, neither the driver nor the company could cancel it in order to prioritize a higher-paying rider.
  • This is a narrow cancellation ban: it does not prohibit cancellations for other reasons.
  • The bill is introduced and has been referred to committee; it is not law, and passage is uncertain.

What it means for you#

  • Riders: If the bill becomes law, an accepted ride could not be canceled by the driver or company for the purpose of prioritizing a rider who pays more.
  • Drivers and transportation network companies: They would be prohibited from making that kind of cancellation. The bill does not set out a process for handling cancellations or say how this rule would be enforced.
  • General public: The bill does not directly change fares, eligibility to use rideshare services, or the rules for cancellations for other reasons.

Money#

No publicly available information on costs.

  • The supplied bill text does not state a public cost, fee, fine, or funding source.

What is unclear#

  • The current Act was not supplied, so it is not possible to verify what section 41 already requires or precisely what the bill changes.
  • The bill does not define “higher-paying” or explain how to determine whether a cancellation was made to give another rider priority.
  • The supplied text does not specify enforcement, penalties, complaint handling, or an effective date.
  • The bill does not explain how the rule would apply if a driver and company disagree about why a ride was canceled.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that accepting a ride should prevent the driver or company from bumping that rider for a more profitable request.
  • The ban applies to both the driver and the company, addressing cancellations by either.
  • The rule is limited to cancellations made to prioritize a higher-paying rider, rather than banning cancellations altogether.

Case against#

  • The bill does not define “higher-paying” or explain how anyone would establish the reason for a cancellation.
  • Without details about enforcement or complaints, it is unclear how riders could seek help or how the rule would be applied consistently.
  • Because cancellations for other reasons are not addressed, riders may not know what protections apply in those situations.