For years, the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) had policies that allowed it to suspend a taxi or for-hire vehicle driver’s license based solely on an arrest, even before any conviction, which could instantly cut off a driver’s ability to earn a living. This mattered acutely in New York City’s highly regulated taxi and FHV industry, where licensure is mandatory and enforcement actions can have immediate economic consequences. The settlement described covers drivers whose TLC licenses were suspended due to an arrest between June 28, 2003, and February 18, 2020, reflecting a long period in which “arrest-based” actions were used as a tool of public-safety oversight. The class action was filed because suspending a professional license on the basis of an arrest raises major due process and fairness concerns—an arrest is an accusation, not a finding of guilt—and the impact can be disproportionate when it prevents someone from working while a criminal case is pending. The case is significant because it provides compensation without requiring proof from each claimant, signaling that the alleged harm was considered systemic rather than isolated, and it pressures regulators to rely on clearer standards and procedures before imposing work-ending penalties. It also highlights the tension regulators face in balancing passenger safety with protections against punitive measures that effectively treat allegations as guilt. More broadly, the dispute fits a wider pattern of legal challenges to “collateral consequences” that follow arrests—especially policies that restrict employment, licensing, or housing without a conviction—and it parallels litigation in other sectors where agencies have been pushed to tighten evidentiary standards and provide meaningful hearings before suspensions. In the TLC context, these issues sit alongside city and state rules governing driver eligibility, background checks, and administrative enforcement, as well as evolving expectations that licensing decisions be tied to demonstrated risk rather than mere contact with the criminal legal system, making this settlement part of a larger shift toward conviction-based, process-heavy regulation of professional drivers in New York City.