A "concierge service" that lets paying members bypass airport security lines is unfair to other travelers, California lawmaker says.

A new bill, the first of its kind in the U.S., would ban security screening company Clear from operating at California airports as lawmakers take aim at companies that let consumers pay to pass through security ahead of other travelers.

Sen. Josh Newman, a California Democrat and the sponsor of the legislation, said Clear effectively lets wealthier people skip in front of passengers who have been waiting to be screened by Transportation Security Administration agents.

“It’s a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line,” Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. “Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, ‘Sorry, I have someone better,’ it’s really frustrating.”

If passed, the bill would bar Clear, a private security clearance company founded in 2010, from airports in California. Clear charges members $189 per year to verify passengers’ identities at airports and escort them through security, allowing them to bypass TSA checkpoints. The service is in use at roughly 50 airports across the U.S., as well as at dozens of sports stadiums and other venues.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    0·
    5 months ago

    Nobody (at the time of my writing) is reading the article or understand what Clear is or what this new law is doing.

    • No, its not banning Clear (in all forms, only its present one)
    • Clear is a private company NOT a government program. TSA Pre is a government program. Both allow a traveler to pay for extra background checks and biometric collection to allow them through the identity step of airport security faster. Neither of these skip the hand baggage and body scans.
    • Nothing in the law is about TSA Pre
    • No, its not removing the pathway for “pay to play” allowing those willing to spend more money to get through security faster. Its complicating it for the Clear company, but also perhaps ending a result which Clear subscribers get through even faster than today!

    Important quote from the article:

    “Newman said his bill, SB-1372, doesn’t seek to prohibit Clear from operating its own dedicated security lines separate from other passengers.”

    Clear could set up their own end-to-end security (which would cost them more) but would be even faster to get through because they would bypass regular TSA security and scanning lines, which isn’t what is happening today.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      0·
      5 months ago

      That would defeat the business model - they don’t want to pay to do security, they want to be paid to walk you to security. If they did security and took the liability associated, this would be a great service.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        0·
        5 months ago

        I agree that their current business model wouldn’t work, but their current model only has limited value anyway. I would say it changes the best possible business model for Clear to choose to operate more like Delta SkyPriority where there is a whole separate line from beginning of security to the end, not just the first step of the line, which is what Clear does today.

        • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
          0·
          5 months ago

          Hmm I feel like it would be difficult for a private company to get approved to take over the TSAs job. It would create a conflict of interest- Clear would want to get people through as quick as possible for as cheap as possible.