States with “transportation network company” (TNC) laws defining ride-hail drivers as nonemployees
| State | Color key | Law status | Year Passed | Law | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | Has law | 2018 | AL Admin Code R 770-X-12-.01 | Since 2018, according to Alabama law, a transportation network company (TNC) may not control, direct, or manage the personal vehicle or the TNC driver who connects to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract. |
| Alaska | 1 | Has law | 2017 | AK Stat § 28.23 | Since 2017, according to Alaska law, “a transportation network company may not be considered to control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Arizona | 1 | Has law | 2015 | AZ Stat § 28-9551 | Since 2015, according to Arizona law, a transportation network company (TNC) “may but is not deemed to own, operate or control a personal motor vehicle of a transportation network company driver.” |
| Arkansas | 1 | Has law | 2019 | AR Code § 23-13-719 | Since 2019, according to Arkansas law, “a transportation network company driver is an independent contractor and not the employee of the transportation network company” if certain conditions are met. |
| California | 0 | No law | |||
| Colorado | 1 | Has law | 2017 | CO Rev Stat § 40-10.1-602 | Since 2017, according to Colorado law, “a driver need not be an employee of a transportation network company.” |
| Connecticut | 1 | Has law | 2018 | CT Gen Stat § 13b-116 | Since 2018, according to Connecticut law, a “transportation network company driver” or “driver” means an individual who is not an employee of a transportation network company but who uses a transportation network company vehicle to provide prearranged rides. |
| Delaware | 1 | Has law | 2016 | 2 DE Code § 1901 | Since 2016, according to Delaware law, transportation network company (TNC) “drivers shall be independent contractors and not employees of the TNC” if certain conditions are met. |
| Washington D.C. | 0 | No law | |||
| Florida | 1 | Has law | 2017 | FL Stat § 627.748 | Since 2017, according to Florida law, transportation network company (TNC) “is not deemed to own, control, operate, direct, or manage the TNC vehicles or TNC drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract” and “A TNC driver is an independent contractor and not an employee of the TNC” if certain conditions are met. |
| Georgia | 1 | Has law | 2020 | GA Code § 33-1-24 | Since 2020, according to Georgia law, “transportation network company driver” or “driver” means an individual who uses or permits to be used his or her personal vehicle to provide transportation network company services. Such driver need not be an employee of a transportation network company. In 2022, Georgia additionally passed a bill defining ride-hail and delivery workers as independent contractors as long as the companies they work for adhere to certain conditions, including allowing workers to reject certain rides or deliveries, not requiring specific hours of work, and not barring the use of additional apps (GA Code § 34-8-35). |
| Hawaii | 0 | No law | |||
| Idaho | 1 | Has law | 2015 | ID Code § 41-2501 | Since 2015, according to Idaho law, a transportation network company (TNC) “shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Illinois | 0 | No law | |||
| Indiana | 1 | Has law | 2017 | IN Code § 8-2.1-19.1-4 | Since 2017, according to Indiana law, “Except as otherwise provided in a written contract: (1) a TNC driver who connects to a TNC’s digital network is an independent contractor of the TNC; and (2) a TNC is not considered to…control, direct, or manage a TNC driver who connects to the TNC’s digital network.” |
| Iowa | 1 | Has law | 2016 | IA Code § 321N.1 | Since 2016, according to Iowa law, “a transportation network company is not deemed to control, direct, or manage a transportation network company driver that connects to its digital network, or the driver’s personal vehicle, except as agreed to by the company and the driver pursuant to a written contract.” |
| Kansas | 1 | Has law | 2015 | KS Stat § 8-2702 | Since 2015, according to Kansas law, “a transportation network company shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Kentucky | 0 | No law | |||
| Louisiana | 0 | No law | |||
| Maine | 1 | Has law | 2015 | 29-A ME Rev Stat § 1676 | Since 2015, Maine law covering transportation network companies and drivers “does not apply to claims or proceedings involving workers’ compensation.” |
| Maryland | 0 | No law | |||
| Massachusetts | 0 | No law | |||
| Michigan | 1 | Has law | 2017 | MI Comp L § 257.2137 | Since 2017, according to Michigan law, “a transportation network company driver shall be considered an independent contractor, and not an employee of a transportation network company,” if certain conditions are met. |
| Minnesota | 0 | No law | |||
| Mississippi | 1 | Has law | 2016 | MS Code § 77-8-1 and MS Code § 77-8-21 | Since 2016, according to Mississippi law, “a transportation network company shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract” and “Drivers shall be independent contractors and not employees of the transportation network company” if certain conditions are met. |
| Missouri | 1 | Has law | 2017 | MO Rev Stat § 387.400 and MO Rev Stat § 379.1700 | Since 2017, according to Missouri law, “a transportation network company shall not be deemed to control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract” and “transportation network companies shall not be considered employers of transportation network company drivers except when agreed to by written contract.” |
| Montana | 1 | Has law | 2015 | MT Code § 69-12-101 | Since 2015, according to Montana law, “a transportation network carrier may not be deemed to control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network carrier drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Nebraska | 0 | No law | |||
| Nevada | 1 | Has law | 2015 | NV Rev Stat § 706A.110 | Since 2015, according to Nevada law, “except as otherwise provided in this chapter … or by a written contract between a transportation network company and a driver, a company shall not control, direct or manage a driver or the motor vehicle operated by a driver.” |
| New Hampshire | 1 | Has law | 2018 | NH Rev Stat § 376-A:20 | Since 2018, according to New Hampshire law, transportation network company (TNC) “drivers are presumed to be independent contractors and not employees of the TNC” provided certain conditions are met. |
| New Jersey | 0 | No law | |||
| New Mexico | 1 | Has law | 2016 | NM Stat § 65-7-2 | Since 2016, according to New Mexico law, “transportation network company means a corporation…which shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| New York | 0 | No law | |||
| North Carolina | 1 | Has law | 2015 | NC Gen Stat § 20-280.8 | Since 2015, according to North Carolina law, “a rebuttable presumption exists that a TNC driver is an independent contractor and not an employee. The presumption may be rebutted by application of the common law test for determining employment status.” |
| North Dakota | 1 | Has law | 2019 | ND Stat § 26.1-40.1 | Since 2019, according to North Dakota law, a transportation network company may not be deemed to control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or participating drivers that connect to the transportation network company’s online-enabled application or platform, unless agreed to by written contract. |
| Ohio | 1 | Has law | 2016 | Ohio Rev Code § 4925.10 | Since 2016, sections of Ohio state code covering minimum wage, workers’ compensation, unemployment, and wage payment “do not apply to transportation network companies with regard to transportation network company drivers and transportation network company drivers are not employees for purposes of those chapters or sections, except where agreed to by written contract.” A driver is not an employee for purposes of state code on whistleblower and employee reporting protections and “nothing in this division shall be construed to create an employer and employee relationship between a transportation network company driver and a transportation network company.” |
| Oklahoma | 1 | Has law | 2015 | 47 OK Stat § 47-1011 | Since 2015, according to Oklahoma law, “a TNC shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or participating drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Oregon | 0 | No law | |||
| Pennsylvania | 0 | No law | |||
| Rhode Island | 1 | Has law | 2016 | RI Gen L § 39-14.2-1 and RI Gen L § 39-14.2-16 | Since 2016, according to Rhode Island law, “a transportation network company shall not be deemed to control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract,” and “TNC drivers shall be independent contractors and not employees of the TNC if they are determined to meet federal and state law and regulation relating to independent contractors, and the TNC and TNC driver agree in writing that the TNC driver is an independent contractor of the TNC.” |
| South Carolina | 0 | No law | |||
| South Dakota | 1 | Has law | 2016 | SD Codified L § 32-40-1 | Since 2016, according to South Dakota law, a transportation network company “does not control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
| Tennessee | 1 | Has law | 2016 | TN Code § 65-15-302 | Since 2016, according to Tennessee law, “a transportation network company shall not be deemed to own, control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles used by transportation network company drivers and is not deemed to control or manage transportation network company drivers.” |
| Texas | 1 | Has law | 2017 | TX Occ Code § 2402.114 | Since 2017, according to Texas law, “a driver who is authorized to log in to a transportation network company’s digital network is considered an independent contractor for all purposes, and not an employee of the company in any manner” if certain conditions are met. |
| Utah | 1 | Has law | 2019 | UT Code § 13-51-103 | Since 2019, according to Utah law, “a transportation network driver is an independent contractor of a transportation network company; and not an employee of a transportation network company.” |
| Vermont | 0 | No law | |||
| Virginia | 0 | No law | |||
| Washington | 1 | Has law | 2022 | RCW 48; RCW 49; RCW 51 | Since 2022, according to Washington law, with regard to sections of state code covering insurance, family and medical leave, long-term care benefits, and workers’ compensation, “a driver is not an employee or agent of a transportation network company” if certain conditions are met. A driver “shall not include any person ultimately and finally determined to be an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.” |
| West Virginia | 1 | Has law | 2016 | WV Code § 17-29-1 | Since 2016, according to West Virginia law, a transportation network company “does not control, direct, or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract,” “Drivers are independent contractors and not employees of the transportation network company” if certain conditions are met, and “A transportation network company operating under this article is not required to provide workers’ compensation coverage to a transportation network company driver that is classified as an independent contractor.” |
| Wisconsin | 1 | Has law | 2015 | WI Stat § 440.41 | Since 2015, according to Wisconsin law, “a licensed company is not considered to control, direct, or manage a participating driver or that participating driver’s personal vehicle,” in the absence of a written agreement. |
| Wyoming | 1 | Has law | 2017, 2018 | WY Stat § 31-20-110 | Since 2018, according to Wymoning law, “a driver shall be an independent contractor, not subject to the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act and not an employee of a transportation network company” if certain conditions are met. A transportation network company “shall not be deemed to control, direct or manage the personal vehicles or transportation network company drivers that connect to its digital network, except where agreed to by written contract.” |
Source: EPI analysis of state laws.