PRA and other statutes, then the provisions of the PRA govern.427 In Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, the Supreme Court of Washington considered a question regarding the PRA injunction statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.540, and held that, while the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) is properly regarded as an applicable “other statute” in the PRA context, status as “trade secrets” under the UTSA does not categorically exempt records from disclosure. “Even if the party seeking an injunction proves that it possesses a trade secret under an ‘other statute,’ it still must ‘prove the requirements for an injunction under [Wash. Rev. Code] 42.56.540.’”428 That is, the party seeking to enjoin disclosure must show “that disclosure is clearly not in the public interest, and would result in substantial and irreparable harm to any person or vital government interest.”429 The court remanded the case back to the trial court to make such determination.
Separate from trade secrets, many states protect certain confidential information from disclosure under a public records request. However, information cannot be shielded from disclosure by agreeing that the information will be considered confidential. For example, in Florida, all records received by a public agency are open to public inspection, regardless of the expectations of the source of the material, unless exempted by statute or constitutional provisions.430
5. Exemptions by Other Statutes
Some government records may be specifically exempt from public disclosure by law, including data obtained from micromobility systems. For example, Utah and Nevada require local authorities that mandate scooter share operators provide trip data:
- Must treat such data as confidential and private information and as trade secret and proprietary business information of the scooter share operator, exempt from disclosure under a public records request;
- May not share such data with third parties without the scooter share operator’s consent; and
- May not treat such data as owned by the local authority.431
While statutes addressing shared micromobility system data are not the norm, transit agencies have influenced legislatures to amend state open records laws to protect sensitive mobility data from public disclosure. For example, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet), in the Portland, Oregon area, persuaded lawmakers to exempt data “collected as part of an electronic fare collection system of a mass transit system” from disclosure by including it in the definition of PII.432 Oregon law now permits disclosure of “public records that have attributes of anonymity that are sufficient, or that are aggregated into groupings that are broad enough, to ensure that persons cannot be identified by disclosure of the public records.”433 Similarly, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit in Texas persuaded State legislators to exempt toll-customer travel-data and transit app/ticketing transaction data from public disclosure.434 According to the Shared Use Mobility Center, “the updates to the public records legislation were uncontroversial and were easily passed in their legislatures.”435
IX. CONCLUSION
Shared micromobility has become a popular and convenient transportation option in many cities across North America, especially since the emergence of dockless e-scooters in 2018. According to the North American Bikeshare and Scooter Share Association, in 2022, riders took more than 157 million shared micromobility trips across 363 U.S. cities with a bikeshare, scooter share, or both.436 This is an increase over the past three years.
Cities and transit agencies have worked to integrate bikeshare and scooter share into their larger transportation systems. They may locate docking stations and dockless vehicles near transit for better access, and integrate payment systems for seamless payment between shared mobility and public transit systems. These efforts allow users to switch between different modes depending on their needs and preferences. This can increase the convenience and accessibility of micromobility services.
Shared micromobility has many benefits for cities and communities, such as enhancing transportation equity and access, supporting local economies, and complementing existing transportation networks. Shared micromobility can also help mitigate the impacts of climate change, traffic congestion, and parking demand by encouraging mode shift from single-occupancy vehicles to more sustainable and efficient travel modes. To realize these benefits, shared micromobility systems require partnerships between operators and public agencies, as well as supportive policies and regulations that ensure safety, reliability, and accessibility for all users.
Micromobility devices and shared micromobility systems are subject to regulation at the state, local, and—to a limited
___________________
427 WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 42.56.030 (“In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.”).
428 Lyft, Inc., 190 Wash. 2d at 786, quoting Belo Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Click! Network, 184 Wash. App. 649, 661, 343 P.3d 370 (2014).
429 Lyft, Inc., 190 Wash. 2d at 796.
430 See, e.g., Gadd v. News-Press Publ’g Co., 412 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (records of a county hospital committee are not exempt from the public records law, although the information may come from sources who expect or have been promised confidentiality).
431 NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 484A.469; UTAH CODE ANN. § 41-6a-1115.1.
432 SHARED USE MOBILITY CENTER (SUMC), OBJECTIVE-DRIVEN DATA SHARING FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES IN MOBILITY PARTNERSHIPS (July 2019), https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SUMC_IKA_DataSharingforTransitAgencies.pdf; Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, Legislative Information for House Bill 4086 Protect the Privacy of Public Transit Riders, https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/35111.
433 OR. REV. STATS., Ch.192, Sec. 192.345(38).
434 TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 451.061.
435 Supra note 432.
436 NORTH AMERICAN BIKESHARE AND SCOOTER SHARE ASSOCIATION, 2022 SHARED MICROMOBILITY STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT (Aug. 2023), https://nabsa.net/about/industry/.
extent—federal levels of government. On the federal level, micromobility devices fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The specific agency that regulates a micromobility device depends on its features and capabilities. NHTSA will regulate the device if it meets the definition of a “motor vehicle” under federal law. Otherwise, CPSC has authority to regulate the consumer safety aspects of it.
Micromobility regulations are handled mostly at the state and local levels. State laws will govern whether micromobility devices are allowed within the state and may establish whether, and to what extent, counties and municipalities may regulate such devices, including shared systems. In many states and markets, legislatures have used this power to specifically address micromobility devices—in particular, e-bikes and e-scooters—as well as bikeshare and scooter share systems. This is a shift from not long ago when local governments were regulating micromobility under existing laws that did not address issues unique to shared e-scooter and e-bike systems. Still, a lack of clear definitions in regulations for electric bicycles and scooters can lead to confusion and uncertainty about the legal requirements for their use. Even if an e-bike or e-scooter is not explicitly defined in a state’s laws, it may still be considered a motorcycle, moped, or motor vehicle under a broader definition.
In general, cities allow shared-use micromobility companies to operate in the public rights-of-way only if they have obtained legal permission—in the form of a license, permit, or contract—from the city to deploy their devices. These permits or contracts allow cities to enforce rules such as caps on the number of micromobility devices that may operate in a particular area, safety requirements, data-sharing requirements, and equitable device access. By requiring legal permission and retaining the right to regulate, cities can mitigate risk of injury and ensure compliance with accessibility and civil rights laws.
Safety regulations aimed at preventing crashes, injuries, and fatalities address speed limits, helmet requirements, safe battery practices, rider education, and vehicle requirements (e.g., international standards, CPSC consumer regulations, or applicable state standards). Localities may also establish areas where micromobility devices may and may not operate to protect riders and others with whom they may come in contact. For example, some jurisdictions will allow scooters and bikes on sidewalks while others prohibit such conduct. Local governments may designate specific areas or zones for parking devices, and require system operators to have a plan to prevent devices from being left on sidewalks and otherwise obstructing the public right-of-way.
Transit agencies that serve multiple cities must be aware of the often localized legal landscape governing micromobility and how it will affect the agency’s shared micromobility efforts. Gaps and inconsistencies may exist in local laws that govern shared micromobility systems, and some local regulations may actually conflict with each other. For example, helmet laws vary significantly among states. Many states have no helmet laws, while others require protective headgear for riders of certain ages or for certain classes of electric scooters and bikes.
Despite best efforts to ensure the safety of riders and the public, accidents are bound to happen. To ensure adequate compensation for injuries and property damage caused by micromobility riders, regulations or contracts often require companies to hold insurance and to indemnify the city or transit agency in the event of an accident.
Litigation involving bikeshare and scooter share systems is still in its early stages, so it is difficult to say how courts will rule on various claims that have been filed. However, the biggest challenge for micromobility riders injured in accidents is the liability waiver that they are required to sign as a condition to use a device. These waivers typically release the bikeshare or scooter share company from liability for any injuries that a rider may sustain. However, there are some cases where the courts have found that liability waivers can be invalid or unenforceable, such as if the waiver was not properly signed or if the waiver was obtained through fraud or coercion.437
Riders may turn to products liability claims in an attempt to hold bikeshare and scooter share companies and the manufacturers of such devices liable for their injuries. Product liability claims are based on the idea that the company is responsible for the injuries caused by a defective product. To succeed in a product liability claim, the rider must prove that the device was defective, that the defect caused the injury, and that the bikeshare or scooter share company knew or should have known about the defect. The claims that bikeshare and scooter share riders are making against rental companies are still evolving, and it is too early to say how the courts will rule on these claims. However, the fact that these claims are being made suggests that companies may be held liable for the injuries of their riders in some cases.
Tort claims by pedestrians and others injured because of bikes and scooters being improperly parked are more common among dockless micromobility programs. These negligence claims are based on the bikeshare or scooter share company being at fault for the accident by failing to ensure devices were not obstructing a walkway. Similarly, public nuisance claims allege that the dockless devices are a nuisance to the public, and that the company is responsible for the nuisance. Plaintiffs may also use premises liability, which claims that the owner or operator of the property where the accident occurred, including a municipality, is responsible for the accident. These are just some
___________________
437 See, e.g., Johnson v. UBAR, LLC, 150 Wn. App. 533, 538, 210 P.3d 1021 (2009) (quoting McCorkle v. Hall, 56 Wn. App. 80, 83, 782 P.2d 574 (1989)) (liability waiver provision is not enforceable if the releasing language is “‘so inconspicuous that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions as to whether the document was unwittingly signed’”); Theisen v. Kroger Co, 107 Mich. App 580, 582–583; 309 N.W.2d 676 (1981) (a release is not fairly made and is invalid if (1) the releasor was dazed, in shock, or under the influence of drugs, (2) the nature of the instrument was misrepresented, or (3) there was other fraudulent or overreaching conduct”); Moffit v. Sederlund, 145 Mich. App 1, 8; 378 N.W.2d 491 (1985), lv den 425 Mich. 860 (1986) (“[f]ailure to read a contract document provides a ground for rescission only where the failure was not induced by carelessness alone, but instead was induced by some stratagem, trick, or artifice by the parties seeking to enforce the contract”).
of the most common claims that have been filed in bikeshare and scooter share litigation. The specific claims that may be made will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Dockless bikes and scooters can create accessibility barriers for people with disabilities by blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and transit stops. There is the potential for dockless bikes and scooters to violate the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as well as state and local laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require public entities to make their facilities and services accessible and non-discriminatory for people with disabilities. These laws guarantee among other things, that people with disabilities are able to use public sidewalks and other public rights-of-way and that they have access to public services like public transportation.
Transit agencies and cities that provide or subsidize bikeshare or scooter share programs must ensure that their services are accessible to people with disabilities. This means that shared micromobility programs should: ensure sidewalks and public right of ways are kept clear of such devices; make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to accommodate people with disabilities, such as allowing longer rental periods, providing adaptive devices, or providing assistance; and ensure that docks and websites are accessible to people with disabilities, such as providing ramps, audio cues, braille labels, and large print.
If dockless bikes and scooters obstruct sidewalks and prevent people with disabilities from accessing these services, those people may have a claim against the municipality under the ADA. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are enforceable through a private right of action, meaning people with disabilities who are denied access to bikeshare or scooter share programs can sue operators for violating their rights. Many cities have taken steps to address accessibility issues of dockless bikes and scooters, such as clearing sidewalks, modifying policies, and providing adaptive bikes and scooters.
Transportation equity is a key consideration in transportation planning and funding. The federal government has numerous laws and policies in place to promote transportation equity, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 13166. Title VI prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal funds on the basis of race, color, and national origin, while Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to address disproportionate adverse impacts of federal activities on minority and low-income populations. These laws—and their implications for transit agencies—are more prevalent now that federal funding is explicitly available for shared micromobility systems through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).438
Some central equity issues in shared micromobility systems include lack of cash payment options, affordability, and disparate distribution of devices. To address these equity issues, cities and transit agencies impose equity-based requirements on operators, such as discounted pricing, low-income programs, cash payment options, service area expansion, and other measures that aim to ensure accessibility and affordability for all users.
Shared micromobility systems collect a lot of information about their users, including their location, personal details, and travel patterns. Sometimes this data can be combined with other information to track people’s movements, identify them, or even commit identity theft. While this information is often not shared with other companies or governments, municipalities and transit agencies often request such data as a condition for operating in their jurisdiction. Cities and transit agencies may use this information to monitor and assess the effects and performance of micromobility programs, but they must also protect the privacy and security of micromobility users and operators. There are steps cities and transit agencies can take to protect data, including encryption, access restriction, and other data protection practices.
State and local government agencies are subject to data security laws and other restrictions when they receive, maintain, use, or transmit data containing personally identifiable information (PII) and other sensitive or confidential information. There is no federal privacy regulation that specifically addresses state and local governments’ collection, maintenance, or use of personal data collected from its citizens. Different states have different definitions of PII and different requirements for data collection and protection. This can lead to different theories of liability in the event of a data breach. For example, in some states, a company may be liable for a data breach even if it took reasonable steps to protect that data. In other states, the company may only be liable if it was negligent in protecting that data.
Given that privacy law is still developing, it is important for municipal governments and transit agencies to stay updated on the latest developments. This includes both state and federal laws, judicial interpretations of privacy laws, proposed laws, and any other potential legal responsibilities that could affect them. As bikeshare and scooter share adopt more advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, privacy concerns may increase. Some ways that cities and transit agencies have addressed data privacy and security include requiring micromobility operators to obtain consent from riders before collecting or sharing their personal information.
Cities and transit agencies can benefit from micromobility in many ways. But, micromobility also brings challenges and dangers around safety, equity, infrastructure, and regulation. For cities and transit agencies that offer or subsidize shared micromobility systems, specific issues must be addressed before a system is put into place.
___________________
438 PUB. LAW NO. 117-58.
