Office of the State Prosecutor - Investigation of Threats - Judges
HB1030 would create a detailed set of state-law requirements governing how transportation network companies (TNCs) such as rideshare platforms may deactivate drivers or other operators. The bill expands and updates the statutory definitions of “transportation network company” and “transportation network operator/driver,” then adds a new section requiring each company to maintain a written deactivation policy, make that policy available to operators in accessible formats and languages, and give advance notice before policy changes take effect. It also limits deactivations to reasons consistent with the policy, bars deactivation for certain protected or nonperformance-related reasons, and requires companies to conduct a fair investigation before deactivating an operator except in limited circumstances.
The bill further requires companies to provide deactivated operators with written notice, supporting records, and information about how to appeal, and it creates an internal appeal process with deadlines for review and response. Operators would also be able to file complaints with the Public Service Commission or bring civil actions for violations. The bill adds record-retention and reporting obligations for companies and authorizes the Commission to adopt regulations on policy format, notice, appeal procedures, redactions, privacy, and reporting. It takes effect October 1, 2025, with an initial notice-of-rights deadline of November 1, 2025.
HB1030 would significantly expand the regulatory framework in the Public Utilities Article for transportation network companies operating in Maryland. It would impose new compliance duties on TNCs regarding deactivation policies, notice, investigations, appeals, recordkeeping, and reporting to the Public Service Commission, while also creating enforceable rights for operators to challenge deactivations and obtain supporting information. The bill would likely affect rideshare and app-based delivery platforms, their drivers, and the Commission’s oversight responsibilities.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown beyond the bill’s later Senate passage, but the final Senate vote of 32-1 suggests broad support with limited opposition. The bill’s structure indicates a policy goal of protecting operators from abrupt or opaque deactivations while preserving company authority in cases of law compliance or egregious misconduct. Overall, the measure appears to have been viewed favorably as a worker-protection and due-process bill for gig workers.
The main points of contention are likely to be the balance between operator protections and company discretion, especially around what counts as a valid deactivation reason, how much evidence must be disclosed, and how quickly companies must act. Companies may object to limits on using customer ratings, availability, acceptance rates, or protected speech-related conduct as grounds for deactivation, as well as the administrative burden of notices, translations, record retention, and reporting. Operators and worker advocates would likely support these protections, while companies may push for broader exceptions, confidentiality protections, and flexibility in investigations and appeals.