UC may bar traveling workers from using Uber, Lyft, Airbnb

The University of California is considering barring employees on business trips from staying in Airbnb rentals, riding in Uber and Lyft cars, or using other "peer-to-peer" services because of concerns about liability and regulation of the marketplaces, which allow people to rent personal resources to one another.

UCLA's head of travel jumped the gun in an e-mail to senior administrators on Monday that incorrectly said a ban from the UC office of the president's general counsel was already in effect for the 10-campus system, which employs about 189,000 staff members and 19,000 professors.

"These services are not fully regulated and do not protect users to the same extent as a commercial regulated business," wrote Belinda Borden, UCLA director of travel services. "Until further notice, please do not use services such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb or any similar business while traveling on or engaging in UC business."

That memo drew a sharp rebuke as "shortsighted and unnecessary" from Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, an ex-officio UC regent - and left UC backpedaling.

MBA BY THE BAY: See how an MBA could change your life with SFGATE's interactive directory of Bay Area programs.

"University employees currently use those services and are reimbursed for them when they involve UC business-related travel," said a statement from Steve Montiel, a spokesman for UC President Janet Napolitano. "We are, however, reviewing and evaluating issues revolving around the safety and security of our employees when they use such services."

UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vasquez said Borden's e-mail, which was picked up by many media outlets, "regrettably went out before the office of the UC president had completed its review of the issues."

In a letter to Napolitano, Newsom said such a ban would be bad for the bottom line as the services are often cheaper than traditional ones. Moreover, challenging the status quo and nurturing innovation are part of UC's DNA, he wrote.

"A university that is focused on the future and committed to fostering new technology should not work against innovators and entrepreneurs," he wrote.

The contretemps adds to growing controversies over the services, which have followed the Silicon Valley playbook of innovate, then regulate. In other words, they set up shop without regard to existing laws, which backers decry as mired in the 20th-century.

Airbnb flouts a loosely enforced San Francisco prohibition on short-term rentals, for instance. Lawmakers there are now considering ways to legalize and regulate it. Uber, Lyft and other such services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, but critics say their insurance coverage remains inadequate. The PUC and state legislators are now weighing stricter insurance requirements for the services, which arrange paid rides by drivers in their personal cars.

However, the UC situation appears to be the first time a government entity has publicly considered a ban on the services for its own employees.

"It is reasonable for a state agency to prohibit activities that violate state and city laws out of respect for the jurisdictions that are trying to enforce their laws," said Janelle Orsi, an attorney who heads the Sustainable Economies Law Center, and specializes in sharing economy issues. Moreover, a ban could make sense "to the extent that the liability is still unclear. If a university staff member (on a business trip) were in an accident (in an Uber or Lyft car), it is unclear who would compensate them. The staff member could end up suing the university for liability."

Uber blasted UC in a statement saying that on-demand ride companies are regulated and carry insurance.

"It is astonishing that the UC system, a state entity, has chosen to disregard that Transportation Network Companies have been permitted and declared as safe transit alternatives for thousands of Californians by the California Public Utilities Commission," it wrote.

Airbnb's head of public policy, David Hantman, wrote in a blog post that he was encouraged by UC's apparent move to reconsider its policies.

Montiel's statement struck a conciliatory note, implying that UC hopes to avoid a ban.

"We are actively seeking ways to overcome potential liability and safety concerns and would like to work proactively with companies such as these to get everyone to a point of complete comfort with the risks involved," he said.