
Get in the KNOW
on LA Startups & Tech
XTwo California Ballot Measures Could Have Outsized Impact On Tech Companies
Francesca Billington is a freelance reporter. Prior to that, she was a general assignment reporter for dot.LA and has also reported for KCRW, the Santa Monica Daily Press and local publications in New Jersey. She graduated from Princeton in 2019 with a degree in anthropology.

There are 13 measures on the Nov. 3 ballot, but two in particular could have an outsized impact on the tech industry in L.A. and beyond. They are propositions 22 and 24.
Proposition 22, into which Uber and Lyft have poured tens of millions of dollars, has received most of the attention. It will decide whether delivery and ride-hailing workers will be employees or independent contracts. Proposition 24 will determine online data collection and could have broad implications for consumers and tech companies alike.
Here's what you need to know.
Proposition 22
What it is: The initiative aims to classify an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 of California's app-based ride-hailing and delivery drivers as independent contractors. The Uber and Lyft-backed measure has been at heart of a fight over gig workers' rights.
Why it matters: This measure would alter AB5, a new state law that upended gig employment by forcing companies to classify certain workers as employees instead of independent contractors. Independent contractors don't receive worker's compensation or other labor benefits. The arrangement keeps cost down for companies such as Uber and Lyft, who avoid paying payroll taxes.
If the measure fails, experts say that ride-hailing apps could see labor costs soar 20 to 30%, threatening their core business model. And California, a top market for the apps, could be a testing ground. Twenty-six states currently have mechanisms for some type of ballot initiative or referendum, even though they aren't as expansive as California's, said Rey Fuentes from the advocacy organization Partnership for Working Families.
Much like Prop 13, an initiative that has been bedeviled since it was passed in 1978, this measure would become extremely hard to overturn, needing a seven-eighths vote in the Legislature.
Who supports it: Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, to start. They've poured over $180 million into campaign funding, making this the most expensive ballot measure in California history. Proponents point to the measure as a way to protect driver flexibility and provide workers with benefits. The Prop 22 campaign says failure to pass it will bump up ride-hailing prices by as much as 100% in some places, spike wait times for rides and deliveries and lead to job losses.
Who opposes it: Labor advocate groups have pooled just over $13 million for their No on Prop 22 campaign. They say that under the change, drivers will become ineligible for safety protections offered by the state like paid sick leave and unemployment benefits. And once passed, the proposition will likely never be undone — this one would take a seven-eight vote of legislature to amend.
As we reported last month, new ride-hailing companies are pouncing at the opportunity to attract drivers in one of Uber and Lyft's biggest markets. Two founded in Texas are preparing to launch in L.A. in the coming weeks. Those alternative business models sprung up in the wake of a similar battle three years ago in Austin, when Uber and Lyft left town after the city passed a bill requiring criminal background checks and other protocols. Texas later passed a measure that override local regulations and the companies returned.
Last month, Seattle was the second city to enact a standard minimum wage for gig workers following New York in 2018.
The most recent poll from Berkeley shows support for Prop 22 at 39%, with 36%of likely California voters opposed.
Proposition 24
What it is: This measure would expand on privacy regulations that let consumers opt-out of data sharing on apps and websites. This is already something users can do — if they're willing to sometimes hunt around for that "Do not sell" button.
Prop 24 would require that more companies offer an opt-out feature and allow consumers to correct inaccurate private information. If it passes, the state would also spend $10 million annually on a privacy protection agency to oversee the effort.
Why it matters: This isn't the first ballot measure that's been filed to strengthen statewide online privacy laws. A San Francisco-based real estate developer, Alastair Mactaggart, tried to get a similar measure on the ballot in 2018, but it failed. After negotiating his proposal with the Legislature, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which went into effect this year. Critics point to loopholes and missteps in the regulations that make CCPA ineffective.
The initiative on November's ballot takes those privacy laws — which include giving users access to their personal info and the option to delete it — a step further. Under the measure, more companies would have to allow users opt-out of sharing personal info. Again, the onus would be on individual consumers to opt out on their own. Prop 24 would also raise fines for collecting data from underage users and allow users to correct personal information.
Who supports it: Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate, is the chair of its advisory board. "Currently, Big Tech siphons the data of millions of Americans every minute and sells and resells that data for billions of dollars," he wrote in an article for the San Francisco Chronicle last week.
Mactaggart, who introduced the ballot measure, has donated just over $5.5 million into the campaign.
Who opposes: Consumer protection agencies say the initiative won't do enough to actually protect people's private information online. The ACLU of California calls it a "fake privacy law" in its 2020 ballot guide, adding that businesses could start charging consumers who don't want to share their information. These "pay for privacy" schemes are already allowed under the current CCPA and opponents are worried it could become the norm.
"It's out of step with what people want," said Jake Snow, a technology and civil liberties attorney from the ACLU. He's worried the measure will disproportionately affect vulnerable communities who don't have the time or money to safeguard their data.
The Consumer Federation of California, a nonprofit advocacy organization, is the largest donor to the effort opposing Prop 24.
Richard Holober, the federation's president added that users that don't opt in for data sharing could be forced to pay a premium or could be penalized in some way, for instance with slower service and pop-up ads. Both groups advocate instead for an "opt-in" button for data sharing.
- proposition-22 - dot.LA ›
- Uber and Lyft Hit a Stretch of Pre-Election Bumps - dot.LA ›
- Prop 22 , a Victory for Uber, Lyft - dot.LA ›
- California Passes Nation's Most Stringent Consumer Data Privacy Law - dot.LA ›
- What Prop 24 Will Mean For California Businesses - dot.LA ›
- What Prop 24 Will Mean For California Businesses - dot.LA ›
Francesca Billington is a freelance reporter. Prior to that, she was a general assignment reporter for dot.LA and has also reported for KCRW, the Santa Monica Daily Press and local publications in New Jersey. She graduated from Princeton in 2019 with a degree in anthropology.
Subscribe to our newsletter to catch every headline.
E-Scooter Companies Are Quietly Changing Their Low-Income Programs in LA
When Lime launched in Los Angeles in 2018, the company offered five free rides per day to low-income riders, so long as they were under 30 minutes each.
But in early May, that changed. Rides under 30 minutes now cost low-income Angelenos a flat rate of $1.25. As for the five free rides per day, that program ended December 2021 and was replaced by a rate of $0.50 fee to unlock e-scooters, plus $0.07 per minute (and tax).
Lime isn’t alone. Lyft and Spin have changed the terms of their city-mandated low-income programs. Community advocates say they were left largely unaware.
A Lime spokesperson said that with its updated rate, low-income riders will still get an average discount of almost 90% off its service. He added that the startup's rates in Los Angeles are on average 50% less expensive than in most cities
“We would also like to note that L.A. riders have already saved an estimated $1 million via our Lime Access program, and we expect that figure to keep growing steadily with the new pricing in place,” said the spokesperson, who added that 2,800 low-income Angelenos have taken around 250,000 trips since the program rolled out.
Spin once provided low-income Angelenos with unlimited, free 30-minute rides. Now the company is capping the free rides to five per day. Spin did not immediately return a request for comment.
Similarly, Lyft riders were once able to get a monthly pass for $5 and pay $0.05 per minute per ride. Instead, they’ll now need to pay $0.50 to unlock the e-scooter and an additional $0.15 per minute.
The costs could add up for a demographic that is more likely than the average rider, according to data from rival micromobility startup Wheels, to use e-scooters to get to and from work.
“Lyft is now offering our Community Pass without a monthly payment to make it even easier for more riders to save,” James Boshers, Lyft associate general manager for Southern California, said in an email. Several hundred riders use the program in L.A., according to a spokesperson.
The changes were rolled out with little fanfare, but that might be a moot point. Few of the local transportation advocates dot.LA reached out to were even aware the equity programs existed.
“I mean, I'm not surprised. I think people love giving discounts as a way of showing equity, but there's got to be more,” said Oscar Zarate, assistant director of organizing for SAJE.
A spokesperson for Lime said they have tried unsuccessfully to reach representatives at the organization.
The city of Los Angeles doesn’t promote micromobility equity programs to potential riders; that responsibility falls wholly on companies.
“Revenue generated through the micro-mobility program is dedicated solely to enforcing the conditions of the permit,” LADOT spokesperson Colin Sweeney said by email, “which includes ensuring companies partner with community-based organizations and market their services to low-income residents among other critical safety and consumer protection functions.”
But earlier this year, Sweeney acknowledged that getting micromobility companies to even put their vehicles in low-income communities has been difficult. At first, the city offered incentives to operators, but that proved ineffective.
“As a result, our permanent micromobility program which was established last year REQUIRES operators to deploy a certain percentage of vehicles to specific neighborhoods as a condition of their permit,” he said
A Lime e-scooter parked in West Adams.Photo by Maylin Tu
Little Outreach, But More Scooters
Despite those requirements, some community advocates say that companies are not doing enough to reach out to communities to remove barriers to access.
Yolanda Davis-Overstreet serves as vice president of the West Adams Neighborhood Council and chairs its public safety committee. To her knowledge, no micromobility company operating in West Adams has reached out to the group.
She does, however, plan to reach out to them.
West Adams, a predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood, has experienced high rates of traffic violence. One stretch of Adams Blvd between Fairfax Ave and Crenshaw Blvd saw 59 severe and fatal collisions between 2009 and 2019, according to the L.A. Department of Transportation. Last year, the department completed a number of safety and infrastructure improvements along Adams, adding two miles of new bike lanes that make it safer for e-scooters, bikes and pedestrians.
Davis-Overstreet said she’s starting to see more shared e-scooters in her neighborhood.
“It's a privilege that these scooter companies seem to have, like ‘I don't care about your space. I'm here now’,” she said. ”No, if you're going to be here, you need to be here in a respectful way.”
Yolanda Davis-Overstreet chairs the West Adams Neighborhood Council's public safety committee.
Image courtesy of Yolanda Davis-Overstreet
It’s not that she’s opposed to e-scooters, Davis-Overstreet said, but as e-scooter companies ramp up in the community, so do concerns about safety and accessibility.
She said she wants companies to figure out how to respectfully integrate into a community that is already pursuing alternative forms of transportation.
“That's another reason scooters should be connected with [our] community … How are we going to get people in the United States — in particular in L.A. — in the conversation of climate change, if we don't give them access to other tools to use other than cars?”
Alternative forms of transportation like e-scooters have the potential to make a big impact on underserved residents, especially as gas prices surge.
Eli Akira Kaufman, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, a Lime partner, said that Lime has been a valuable collaborator in L.A. on initiatives like First Ride Academy and Lime Hero. But he would like to see companies do more for underserved communities, like advocating for better biking infrastructure and sponsoring workforce development programs.
“Lime Access and these different accessibility programs are great. We totally applaud their intent. But what more can be done to serve our most vulnerable commuters?”
Others cited the requirement that low-income customers fill out an online form and provide proof of income to access discounted rides.
“I don't know if a señora is going to be able to do that,” said SAJE’s Zarate. “And I think people really underestimate how difficult it is to fill out these applications, provide all this documentation— and there's a stigma, ‘Oh, you're applying for these low-income things’ that also discourages people from applying.”
Zarate added that Los Angeles transportation advocates want to start a dialogue—not a fight—with e-scooter companies like Lime, Bird and Lyft.
“Working class communities have always been multidimensional in terms of their transit and how they get around. People bike all around, you feel me?,” he said. “So, I think there's a strong tradition in the community. It's just about finding ways that work for everyone.”
‘Do Your Homework’
Currently, there are six dockless e-scooter and e-bike operators in Los Angeles: Bird, Lime, Spin, Superpedestrian (LINK), Wheels and Lyft. Each runs a separate low-income program with rates varying widely. The same 30-minute ride might cost $0 (Spin, LINK) to $7.85 (Bird) plus tax, depending on the company.
The L.A. Department of Transportation requires micromobility operators to:
- Deploy 20% of their total fleet in equity zones if they operate in certain more lucrative parts of the city like Venice, Hollywood and Downtown L.A.
- Offer a cash option for unbanked customers without a credit or debit card.
- Offer a non-smartphone option to unlock vehicles.
- Offer discounted rates for customers with an income level at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines.
- Attend meetings with community stakeholders such as neighborhood councils and disability rights organizations.
- Partner with a community-based organization.
Here’s a run down of costs and information for each low-income program operating in the city of Los Angeles.
Wheels: Wheels for All
$1.10 flat rate for 30 minutes
Lime: Lime Access
$1.25 flat rate for 30 minutes
Bird: Community pricing
50% off plus tax
Superpedestrian/ LINK: LINK-Up
Unlimited free 30 minute rides
Spin: Spin Access
Five free 30 minute rides per day
Lyft: Lyft Community Pass
$0.50 to unlock and $0.15 per minute
Are you enrolled in Lime Access, Lyft Community Pass or Spin Access and have the recent changes affected you? Let us know!
This article has been updated to include information from Lime about their efforts to engage with L.A. community groups.
- Escooter Startup Superpedestrian Takes to LA Streets - dot.LA ›
- Can Bird Fix the Hazards of E-Scootering? - dot.LA ›
- Can WeHo-Based Wheels Get More Underserved Angelenos to ... ›
Faraday Future Reveals Only 401 Pre-Orders For Its First Electric Car
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.
Electric vehicle hopeful Faraday Future has had no shortage of drama—from alleged securities law violations to boardroom shake-ups—on its long and circuitous path to actually producing a car. And though the Gardena-based company looked to have turned a corner by recently announcing plans to launch its first vehicle later this year, Faraday’s quarterly earnings report this week revealed that demand for that car has underwhelmed—to say the least.
Among the business updates and organizational changes disclosed in its first-quarter earnings release on Monday, the company tucked in one startling number: 401. That’s the number of paid pre-orders that Faraday said it had received for its first production vehicle, the FF 91, as of March 31.
The paltry number is especially interesting given the context of the automaker’s rocky history. Earlier this year, the publicly traded company found itself in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is now investigating allegedly inaccurate and misleading statements made by Faraday to investors. Those statements, according to an internal review by the company, include misrepresenting how many pre-orders it had received for the FF 91: Originally, Faraday reported more than 14,000 reservations on its books, but it later emerged that an overwhelming bulk of those pre-orders were unpaid—with only a few hundred actual, paid deposits on the vehicles. (What’s more, nearly 80% of those pre-orders were allegedly from a single, undisclosed company that may have been an affiliate of Faraday’s, according to a blistering report by short-selling firm J Capital.)
Faraday’s earnings report also highlighted first-quarter developments including leadership moves, production partnerships and its unveiling of the first production-intent FF 91. The company noted that it had received a dealer and distributor license from the state of California that should allow Faraday to sell vehicles online anywhere in the U.S. It also signed a lease for a showroom in Beverly Hills, and is currently on the search for a second such location in the U.S. Additionally, Faraday Future’s second car, the FF 81, will be produced in South Korea in partnership with auto manufacturer Myoung Shin, with production slated to begin in 2024.
In terms of financials, Faraday reported an operating loss of approximately $149 million in the first quarter—up from a loss of $19 million in the same period last year. The company has $706 million in total assets on its balance sheet, including $276 million in cash. Faraday’s stock closed Wednesday’s trading at $3 per share—down roughly 50% since the start of this year.
- Faraday Future Plans to Launch Its First Electric Car - dot.LA ›
- Does Faraday Future Have a Future? - dot.LA ›
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.
Meet CropSafe, the Agtech Startup Helping Farmers Monitor Their Fields
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.
This January, John McElhone moved to Santa Monica from, as he described it, “a tiny farm in the absolute middle of nowhere” in his native Northern Ireland, with the goal of growing the crop-monitoring tech startup he founded.
It looks like McElhone’s big move is beginning to pay off: His company, CropSafe, announced a $3 million seed funding round on Tuesday that will help it develop and scale its remote crop-monitoring capabilities for farmers. Venture firm Elefund led the round and was joined by investors Foundation Capital, Global Founders Capital, V1.VC and Great Oaks Capital, as well as angel investors Cory Levy, Josh Browder and Charlie Songhurst. The capital will go toward growing CropSafe’s six-person engineering team and building up its new U.S. headquarters in Santa Monica.
The nascent agtech company began in 2019 as a project between McElhone and his co-founder and high school classmate, Micheál McLaughlin. Growing up in the Northern Irish countryside, the pair developed an interest in technology, which led to ideas about how such technology could aid the agricultural communities they were raised around.
“We noticed that there was a lot of really new, cool technology coming into the farming market at the time,” McElhone told dot.LA. “But every single farmer in our area hadn't a clue how to get started with all this new fancy technology, because they would have to go to training sessions or learn how satellite imagery from NASA works. And farmers—their job is to farm, not to interpret data.”
The first version of CropSafe’s software aimed to bridge that gap. At its core, the platform is an interpretation engine that scrapes and parses through troves of weather data and satellite imagery to find the information that farmers need to grow and harvest more effectively. “CropSafe did that work for you and spots useful nuggets like, ‘Hey, there's blight in field no. 14; here's the exact location and what you need to do next,’” McElhone explained.
But the project, which began simply as a tool for friends and family in Northern Ireland, started drawing attention from users around the world; to the founders’ surprise, people began offering to pay for the service. “That was kind of a turning point—realizing it wasn't just our 200 people that wanted to use it,” McElhone said. So he packed his bags and moved to Southern California at the start of this year to try to build out the software in one of agtech’s hottest markets.
McElhone and McLaughlin now believe there’s a better way forward that would position CropSafe as more akin to a fintech platform for farmers: Because the software collects so much data on farms, it can offer insights into removing bottlenecks that farmers could leverage to secure crucial financing for equipment and other needs.
“If a farm is leasing three combines this year, with the data we have on that farm [and its] crops, we might be able to say: ‘Hey, if you lease an additional combine this year, we know that you will produce so-and-so additional yield and produce $25,000,’” according to McElhone. In an ideal scenario, CropSafe could allow the financing for that combine to be approved instantly on the strength of the data on its platform; the farmer clicks a button on the app, and the combine gets delivered the next day.
So far, McElhone is tight-lipped about partnerships in this area of its business, but said announcements should be coming this summer. The company is also considering offering farmers insights into the best times and places to sell crops, with CropSafe taking a small cut of revenues for the service. (The idea is that farmers would only pay when they see increased sales from using CropSafe’s insights, McElhone said.)
But the move to Santa Monica has already proven fertile for the company, which is planning to announce partnerships with other agtech companies that would allow CropSafe to act more as an operating system—one connecting autonomous tractors, weathers sensors, and other “internet of things” technologies to ensure better, more sustainable crops. With local startups like Future Acres and Abundant Robotics already operating in the space, CropSafe seems poised to benefit from Southern California’s position as a hub for agtech in the U.S.
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.