0 min left

California Bill Seeks to Cut Clear From PreCheck Lines

A bill currently running through the California Senate would require Clear from operating at commercial airports, citing them as a “source of numerous security violations.”
While many frequent flyers use Clear as an easy way to beat long lines at the airport, a proposed California law could prevent airports from utilizing their services.


Introduced in February 2024, California Senate Bill 1372 seeks to prevent Clear and other third-party vendors from providing pre-screening services which would utilize current Transportation Security Administration lanes.


Law Would Change Clear Operations at Eight California Airports

Currently, Clear operates pre-screening at eight California airports, including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Oakland International Airport (OAK), and Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). At each kiosk, flyers scan their boarding passes and either their eyes or fingerprints to verify their identification. Once successful, they are escorted to the front of the TSA line for security screening.


In a briefing to the State Senate’s Transportation Committee, Democrat Sen. Josh Newman claims that Clear is responsible for “numerous security violations, including at least one incident where a person using a boarding pass they’d found in the trash was escorted through security by CLEAR personnel.” Representing a portion of Southern California, the legislator also accuses the provider of creating an unfair system for those willing to pay Clear’s annual fee.


“While CLEAR may save time for its high-paying customers, it does so at the direct expense of average airport travelers who, having finally made it to the front of a security line, often find themselves being pushed aside to make way for a CLEAR subscriber,” Newman writes in his analysis. “[The bill] would require CLEAR and other companies offering similar services at California airports to operate in a dedicated security lane, separate from general security and TSA PreCheck passengers, thereby ensuring a consistent and equitable experience for all air travelers.”


If the bill were to become law, airports would be unable to sign into new agreements with Clear or other third-party providers after January 1, 2025, unless they can provide a separate screening lane.   Though the senator acknowledges that adding a dedicated lane would raise costs for airports, he encourages local authorities to “find creative ways to raise revenues, but not at the expense of the public’s interest.”


In the most recent action, the bill passed through the transportation committee in an 8-4 vote. It will now move forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee for another committee review before going to the Senate floor.


The bill is supported by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, while facing opposition from six airlines, including Alaska Airlines, JetBlue, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines.


Share your thoughts on the proposed legislation on the FlyerTalk forums

isisthecat47 May 2, 2024

I'm in CA and have written to my state legislator to vote no.

jinglebear April 26, 2024

Very poor article Joe Cortez! Shame on you!

The proposed bill would prevent services like Clear from using existing pre-security lanes at airports THAT DO NO CURRENTLY HAVE CLEAR; the bill has no effect on exisiting airports using Clear.

A local union of Government Employees supports the bill, I presume because it would create more jobs staffing the separate lanes.  I assume a Flight Attendants union is in support of this because a separate lane for Clear would reduce the congestion for Crew in the TSAPreCheck lane and save Crew some time?

jinglebear April 26, 2024

Where is your editor/proofreader, Joe Cortez???
A bill currently running through the California Senate would require Clear from operating at commercial airports, citing them as a “source of numerous security violations.”

awayIgo April 25, 2024

I never thought I would agree with California on anything but this is, IMO so so right. I had no idea what Clear was and one day at JFK. when the pre-check line was closed I was told Clear was giving free trials. I answered a few questions (not very secure) and cut a very long line,  I was horrified. As a retired educator I used to not allow my students to permit “cuts" unless they changed places and they went to the rear.(never happened) When I received the bill to join the service I told them  exactly why I was not joining.  Basically, I feel it’s unethical and unfair!

SamirD April 25, 2024

Sounds like a senator got cut in front of by a clear customer and got ticked off.  Abuse of power and personal vendetta 101 imo.

At SFO, ime clear doesn't cut in the tsa pre line unless you have tsa pre and clear.  Otherwise clear just gets you to the front of the regular line.  And you pay a fee for that--how is that a security issue?  They have a biometric registration process and are confirming identity via biometric checks vs just looking at someone's face at tsa.

If the Fed didn't like a third party company like clear getting in between tsa pre and regular screening, they would have eliminated the ability for these companies to operate.  For CA to again have their head up somewhere smelly isn't surprising with all the corruption and idiocy found in the third world management of the state.  The day that the GDPs in CA drop to the rest of the nation, CA will be bankrupt so fast it will make an earthquake look slow.