Uber has set California on a collision course for November’s ballot, pitching a measure aimed at changing how auto-crash cases pay out—by narrowing personal injury contingency fees and putting limits on certain medical damages. The proposal has sparked a multi-front response from attorneys and doctors who say the initiative could reduce crash survivors’ access to care and compensation, even when the crash has no connection to Uber rides.
Uber’s initiative was filed last fall and would apply to “victims of vehicle crashes” statewide, according to the measure’s description in the reporting. The company’s stated focus is on curbing what it characterizes as attorney-driven overbilling and overtreatment: it says lawyers and medical practices inflate victims’ medical costs and take a large share of settlements on contingency.
At the center of the political fight is how much crash victims would keep from any recovery and how medical expenses would be treated in litigation. Uber’s initiative calls for victims to retain 75% of any settlement they receive, while it limits awards for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering those expenses. For liens and future medical expenses, the proposal would cap payments at 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service and at 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate, and it would also ban law firms from referring clients to providers in which the firms have a financial interest.
Legal and medical opponents have countered with initiatives of their own. Attorneys have proposed measures that would, among other changes, treat ride-hailing companies more like other transportation carriers for purposes of liability in certain situations. One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers, including requirements for additional background checks for drivers, monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct, and disclosures to customers about a driver safety-risk assessment score; that measure, as described in the reporting, would need 546,651 signatures by July 1 to reach the ballot, and supporters said it reached the 25% threshold weeks earlier. Another initiative described in the reporting would expand liability for passenger and public injuries, but campaign backers told CalMatters they stopped collecting signatures in late February. A third initiative would be constitutional in form and would prohibit new state laws that interfere with people’s ability to hire the lawyers of their choice, with the reporting noting it would void Uber’s initiative if both were approved by voters.
Doctors and other medical providers also entered the ballot fight by organizing a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, formed last October specifically to oppose Uber’s proposal. Pamela Lopez, described as a representative for the committee, said the providers had raised about $5 million so far and were aiming to raise $10 million.
U.S. campaign finance records show Uber has spent about $32.5 million on its effort since last fall, while opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber’s initiative and to promote the competing measures from lawyers and medical providers. Consumer Attorneys of California, a group of lawyers representing consumers, led spending on the opposition with $30 million so far, and more than 400 other attorneys and law firms had spent a combined $20 million, according to the reporting. Uber’s opponents also used the same money pools to buy separate TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl, as the campaign signatures race for ballot placement continued.
The reporting also points to a history of Uber ballot-scale spending in California. Uber last put tens of millions of dollars into a California ballot measure with Proposition 22 in 2020, when voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies allowing them to continue treating drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors rather than employees. In that earlier effort, Uber (along with Postmates) funded more than $70 million out of about $205 million in total spending by the winning campaign, according to the reporting.
Legal experts say Uber’s initiative could appeal to voters while drawing substantial criticism from lawyers and providers. Nora Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor described as a litigation expert, said in the reporting that the measure could backfire for Uber but that it was “certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company’s) initiative because it has a ‘bumper sticker quality’ to it.” Engstrom also argued that capping contingency fees effectively functions like a price control and that economists generally agree price controls hurt consumers, while she and other attorneys said the cap could discourage attorneys from taking on cases that would otherwise help crash survivors seek compensation for losses or injuries.
The measure’s potential fiscal effects are also part of the debate. The Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote that if Uber’s ballot measure passes, California could face increased Medi-Cal costs “such as for health care that the state wouldn’t be able to recover,” while it could also save tens of millions of dollars each year in court costs if fewer auto accident cases proceed, as reported in the cluster.
Uber’s campaign says its proposal is designed to prioritize crash victims over attorneys it portrays as taking advantage of the system. Nathan Click, described as a spokesperson for Uber’s campaign, said in a statement that “Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does.” Opponents dispute that framing, and Consumer Attorneys of California President Doug Saeltzer said if the initiative qualifies for the November ballot and is approved, accident victims may not be able to sue for the compensation they deserve because “lawyers will not have enough incentive to take on their cases if they know they will get only 25% of the settlement— or less— as opposed to the average 33% or more,” according to the reporting.
Engstrom and other critics also questioned how the initiative addresses medical bills, describing issues with convoluted language. As the reporting describes, lawyers and Uber offer different interpretations of who would pay medical expenses after a crash, including how the 75% retention requirement interacts with provisions about medical expenses, liens, and deductions. Lopez of Providers for Patient Care raised a different concern tied to uninsured and underinsured crash survivors: she said limits on medical costs could lead providers to decline to treat some patients because of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of what care costs, which she said could increase medical costs for everyone else and affect people who are injured in auto accidents in California.
Uber’s initiative would also require a high signature threshold to qualify because it is written as a constitutional amendment. The reporting says Uber would need more than 874,000 signatures by June 8; by the first week of February, the company had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State. The outcome in November will determine whether the proposal’s fee caps and reimbursement limits become California’s rule—or whether the attorneys’ and doctors’ competing initiatives, including measures that would expand liability and bar certain legal constraints, prevail instead.