In an era where digital convenience intersects with real-world risk, the rise in app-based food delivery services has had an unintended consequence: a marked increase in vehicle collisions and pedestrian incidents involving delivery drivers. 

In response, California has enacted Assembly Bill 375 (AB 375)—a 2024 law that took effect in March 2025 this law aims to curb the dangerous legal loopholes bypassed by major platforms such as DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Instacart.

Overview of AB 375

AB 375 imposes statutory duties on food delivery platforms to:

• Verify the identity of each delivery driver using biometric screening or similar reliable methods.
• Prohibit account sharing, where a registered driver allows another person to make deliveries under their account,
• Maintain comprehensive records on who is delivering, when, and where.

This law is a direct response to an alarming trend: unauthorized drivers operating vehicles on California roadways under borrowed or false credentials, leading to accidents with no clear accountability.

The Legal Framework: From Negligent Hiring to Vicarious Liability

Under prior common law and statutory frameworks, food delivery platforms frequently denied liability by characterizing drivers as independent contractors, invoking the “control” standard to evade respondent superior principles.

However, AB 375 changes this by establishing affirmative duties of care on the platforms themselves. If a platform fails to verify the identity of a driver or knowingly permits lax enforcement of account policies, plaintiffs may now assert claims for:

• Negligent hiring, retention, or supervision,
• Negligent entrustment of a digital platform, and
• Direct statutory violations, especially if platform conduct demonstrates disregard for public safety obligations.

In practical terms, these theories permit the direct inclusion of the platform as a named defendant in personal injury litigation, opening the door to deeper insurance coverage and more substantial recovery for victims.

Evidentiary Value: Strengthening Claims Through Statutory Breach

Most significantly, a platform's noncompliance with AB 375 may constitute evidence of negligence per se—a powerful presumption that can shape both settlement negotiations and trial outcomes.

For example:

• If a DoorDash driver rear-ends a vehicle in Oceanside while using a sibling's account, failure to prevent that unauthorized use could be central to liability.
• If Uber Eats cannot produce logs showing who was driving at the time of a collision in Vista, the absence of records may now favor the injured plaintiff.

Moreover, the platform's records under AB 375 become discoverable evidence. This enhances a plaintiff's ability to:

• Establish that a driver was working at the time of the accident,
• Show the platform knew or should have known of previous misconduct,
• Demonstrate systemic flaws in the company's compliance practices.

Why Choose the Kohn Law Office

Situated in North County San Diego, the Kohn Law Office is particularly well-equipped to handle intricate cases arising under new legislation such as AB 375. When large tech platforms prioritize profit over safety, we hold them accountable. Our firm has the tools, experience, and courtroom presence to ensure victims are not left paying the price for corporate negligence.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a delivery driver don't wait, contact us today at (760) 721-8182 for a free consultation.