DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Uber Illustrates the Limits of Tech Innovation for Accessibility

Ariana Aboulafia is a fellow at Tech Policy Press.

Many people with disabilities rely on ride-sharing services as part of their daily lives to fill gaps in access to other forms of transit. But what happens when this technology is not as reliable as it may appear to be?

A lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Uber this month alleges that this has been the experience of people like Michael May, a blind person with a guide dog who allegedly experienced multiple ride denials when using Uber. Kingsly Joseph, a manual wheelchair user, said he has had similar experiences and that Uber drivers “routinely” deny him rides because he uses a wheelchair. Elizabeth Lawrence, who has a prosthetic leg, has allegedly been denied the required accommodation of sitting in the front seat of vehicles when using Uber.

Based on these and other allegations, DOJ’s complaint asserts that the ridesharing company engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against riders with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (this is not the first suit of its kind against Uber). In response, the DOJ is seeking monetary damages (to the tune of $125 million) to compensate affected passengers, as well as civil penalties and modifications of policies that it says will stop discriminatory practices and facilitate ADA compliance. Uber has denied the allegations.

In general, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities; Title III of the Act specifically covers privately operated transportation, as well as public accommodations and limited other entities. The Department of Justice is arguing that Uber’s actions violate the requirements in this Title. While it may be some time before the lawsuit is resolved, the allegations illustrate the broader challenges raised by over-relying on technology for disability inclusion.

Many disabled people rely on rideshare services to get to work, appointments, or other important places independently. This could partially be because, according to 2022 statistics from the Bureau of Transportation, an estimated 18.6 million Americans have travel-limiting disabilities that can make using other forms of transportation difficult; furthermore, disabled people are disproportionately more likely to be low-income, which can impact their ability to own a vehicle or other reliable form of transportation.

Ride-hailing services can be beneficial for many people with disabilities. Uber itself has written about the importance of serving disabled users, and has several features that specifically aim to make their services more accessible to some disabled users. Indeed, though they are far from perfect, rideshare services have absolutely made my life easier as a disabled person. But, both as a philosophical and a practical matter, there are real concerns with relying on privately-owned technologies to fill accessibility gaps, instead of investing in publicly-operated utilities.

Disability itself is not a problem to be solved. However, many disabled people face real social barriers related to accessibility and discrimination every day. Many of the worst impacts of these barriers can be ameliorated, but doing so takes concerted efforts to center people with disabilities to ensure inclusivity in design and practice. Technosolutionism, or the idea that technology alone can solve complex social problems, is rampant in the context of disability inclusion and accessibility, where apps, tools, and assistive technologies often claim to solve problems for disabled people. Some of these tools are, of course, useful, but some are obviously the result of a development process that did not include people with disabilities, part of the phenomenon that Dr. Ashley Shew has described as technoableism. Just because a particular tech tool can be valuable for disabled people, though, does not mean that tool is the best way of mitigating a particular barrier.

Which brings us back to rideshare apps—and, for that matter, to autonomous vehicles as well, the developers of which often emphasize that they provide accessible and necessary transportation solutions for people with disabilities despite significant shortcomings primarily affecting the same population. There are barriers, like accessibility challenges, affordability, and availability, to public transportation throughout the United States, which affect both people with and without disabilities. According to the American Public Transportation Association, 45% of Americans have no access to public transportation—a figure that doesn’t account for those disabled Americans who may not be able to safely take public transit even if it is available within their communities. Rideshares and autonomous vehicles may help solve part of this problem, but they still pose challenges related to access and discriminatory impact for disabled people, in ways that can detrimentally impact our lives.

Private rideshares are not inherently more discriminatory than public transit; rather, the practice of outsourcing the creation of accessible infrastructure to private technological band-aids is a risky business. I have long argued for a multi-stakeholder approach to building a disability-inclusive tech ecosystem, one that acknowledges the important part that private tech companies and developers can play but also focuses on the separate roles of government actors and, above all else, centers disabled people and disability advocates. I’ve recommended, for example, that while tech companies can build more inclusive products and center disabled people in design, it is the role of the government to ensure compliance with civil rights statutes and provide protections through commonsense regulation – and functioning public infrastructure.

Expecting technology alone to solve society’s most complex problems won’t work for anyone, but it is often particularly harmful to marginalized people, including those with disabilities. Regardless of the outcome of this particular lawsuit, it can serve as a lesson: to tech companies, that they should improve their policies impacting disabled users, and to policymakers, who should aim to dismantle structural barriers to accessibility and invest in more inclusive systems that work better for all.