Senate committee hears HB 12‑73 to cap rideshare platform take; effort fails to advance and is postponed indefinitely

The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee on Wednesday considered House Bill 12‑73, a proposal that would prevent transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft from retaining more than 20% of a passenger fare (excluding tips and passthrough charges). Sponsors and dozens of drivers urged the committee to act for worker pay and safety, while company representatives warned the cap could raise fares and reduce service.

Senator Cutter, a bill sponsor, opened the hearing by criticizing modern platform pricing, saying platforms have moved from a transparent commission to algorithmic systems that reduce drivers’ shares. "Uber and Lyft want us to believe they're simply technology platforms connecting riders and drivers. But that story falls apart the second you file the money," Cutter said, listing expenses drivers shoulder from maintenance to insurance.

Co‑prime sponsor Senator Wallace framed HB 12‑73 as an 80/20 fairness rule. "When someone gets into a car in Colorado, the person behind the wheel should take home the majority of the fare," Wallace said, and described the bill’s mechanics: a TNC could not retain more than 20% of a consumer fare, excluding tips and passthroughs such as tolls, and could not impose driver fees that would push a driver’s net receipt below 80%.

Representatives of the platforms testified in opposition. Francisco Avalos, senior public policy manager at Lyft, said a statutory cap would remove flexibility the marketplace uses to balance fares, supply and demand and risk higher fares and lower demand. Avalos told the committee that "a majority of the external fees include the insurance coverages" and that, in Colorado, external fees account for about one‑fifth of a fare. He also said Colorado drivers earn more than $35 per engaged hour on average, a figure company witnesses said reflects only time spent dispatched and carrying a passenger rather than total logged time.

Stephanie Sass, public policy manager for Uber Technologies in the Southwestern U.S., said the bill fails to account for taxes, mandated insurance, airport charges and credit card fees and warned those costs would require large fare increases to comply. "Rider fares would have to rise dramatically, likely doubling just to comply," she said, and she cautioned that smaller or seasonal markets could lose service.

Labor groups and drivers delivered contrasting testimony. Kirsten Forseth of the Colorado AFL‑CIO said platforms behave like employers while treating drivers as independent contractors and argued workers bear nearly all operating costs. Drivers described high turnover and steep personal investments; Becky Davis said some drivers bought high‑end vehicles expecting higher pay and that "a lot of drivers have actually invested up to $80,000" in vehicles and related investments. Driver advocates including Ken O'Donnell of the Drivers Cooperative of Colorado said cooperative models demonstrate an 80/20 split is viable and estimated the change would keep about $22 million annually in Colorado.

Committee members pressed both sides on the empirical effects of caps, asking whether prior policies increased per‑driver take‑home pay once shifts in supply and trip volume were accounted for. Company witnesses said caps risk unintended market responses; driver advocates disputed company calculations and said advertised company take rates and accounting practices obscure true driver shares.

After sponsor closing remarks, Senator Cutter moved to refer HB 12‑73 to the Appropriations Committee. The clerk recorded a roll‑call vote; the motion failed 3–6. The committee then moved to postpone the bill indefinitely on a reverse roll call and the motion passed with no objections. The chair thanked witnesses and adjourned the committee.

The decision leaves the bill without further action at this committee; sponsors said they will continue discussions and may revise the proposal in future sessions.