{"id":191452,"date":"2026-02-24T14:06:14","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T14:06:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/191452\/"},"modified":"2026-02-24T14:06:14","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T14:06:14","slug":"uber-ballot-initiative-sparks-showdown-with-lawyers-doctors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/191452\/","title":{"rendered":"Uber ballot initiative sparks showdown with lawyers, doctors"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Levi Sumagaysay<\/a>, CalMatters<\/p>\n

This story was originally published by CalMatters<\/a>. Sign up<\/a> for their newsletters.<\/p>\n

In November, California voters may have to referee a multimillion-dollar battle among\u00a0 Uber, attorneys and doctors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for anybody who uses the state\u2019s roads and highways.<\/p>\n

Uber last fall filed a proposed ballot measure that would cap personal injury lawyers\u2019 contingency fees and limit medical damages for all vehicle crashes in California, even those not involving an Uber. The company paints its effort as a way to rein in attorneys who take advantage of those who get hurt in a crash. Crash survivors often hire attorneys on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyers only get paid if they win the case.<\/p>\n

That got attorney groups fired up: They responded by proposing three ballot initiatives that would expand the ride-hailing giant\u2019s liability for passenger injuries; increase its liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers; and ban new state laws that interfere with people\u2019s ability to retain lawyers.<\/p>\n

Doctors and other medical providers also got organized and formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, last October to oppose Uber\u2019s initiative.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Despite the substantial opposition, legal experts acknowledge Uber\u2019s proposed ballot initiative could appeal to Californians.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis measure could backfire for Uber, but it’s certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company\u2019s) initiative because it has a \u2018bumper sticker quality\u2019 to it,\u201d said Stanford University law professor Nora Engstrom, a litigation expert. She said she has no formal role in the opposition to Uber\u2019s initiative, but she has researched contingency fees\u2019 effects on competition and has written an op-ed<\/a> opposing the measure.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Engstrom told CalMatters the measure might look good because it seems \u201cunthreatening\u201d; who would oppose crash survivors keeping more of their settlements? But capping contingency fees is equivalent to a price control, and economists generally agree that price controls hurt consumers, she said. She and other lawyers say the initiative could discourage attorneys from taking on cases and helping crash survivors secure compensation for any losses or injuries.<\/p>\n

A very expensive battle<\/p>\n

Uber has put about $32.5 million into its effort since last fall, according to campaign finance records. The opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members are lawyers who represent consumers, has led the way with $30 million so far, while more than 400 other attorneys and law firms have spent a combined $20 million to fight the Uber initiative and promote their three measures. The medical providers have raised about $5 million so far and are aiming to raise a total of $10 million, said Pamela Lopez, a campaign representative.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

As each side collects signatures to try to get their initiatives on the ballot, they have also spent that money on two different TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The last time Uber spent tens of millions of dollars on a California ballot measure was on Proposition 22 in 2020, when the state\u2019s voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies<\/a>, which allowed them to create a carveout from labor law and continue to treat their drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Top spender Uber \u2014 along with its Postmates subsidiary \u2014 funded more than $70 million out of the total $205 million the winning campaign.<\/p>\n

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who focuses on labor and opposed Uber\u2019s Prop. 22 five years ago, said: \u201cUber is trying once again to misuse the democratic process and to disclaim legal responsibility \u2014 this time, not just towards their drivers but also towards consumers.\u201d<\/p>\n

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office wrote<\/a> that if Uber\u2019s ballot measure passes, the state could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of increased Medi-Cal costs, such as for health care that the state wouldn\u2019t be able to recover. On the other hand, the state could save tens of millions of dollars a year in court costs because there could be fewer auto accident cases, the LAO wrote.<\/p>\n

Uber\u2019s \u2018expansive\u2019 measure<\/p>\n

Uber\u2019s proposed initiative<\/a> calls for victims of vehicle crashes to retain 75% of any settlement they receive. In addition, it limits how much can be awarded for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering them. For liens and future medical expenses, the limit would be 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service, and 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. The measure would also ban law firms from referring clients to a health care provider in which they have a financial interest.<\/p>\n

The company says it\u2019s necessary to stop lawyers from inflating crash victims\u2019 medical costs then pocketing a big chunk of a settlement. Uber has sued lawyers and medical practices<\/a> in California, New York and Florida over such allegations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cCalifornians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that\u2019s exactly what this measure does,\u201d said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Uber\u2019s campaign, in a statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Opponents of the measure said that if it qualifies for the November ballot and voters approve it, 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 \u2014 or less \u2014 as opposed to the average 33% or more.<\/p>\n

\u201cUber wrote it to be expansive, to keep victims from finding attorneys,\u201d said Doug Saeltzer, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which is spearheading the opposition to Uber\u2019s initiative and proposed the competing ballot measures.<\/p>\n

Lawyers and Uber are also battling over legalese about who would be responsible for paying medical bills after a crash. The lawyers say Uber\u2019s initiative would require medical expenses to get paid from the attorney\u2019s share of the settlement. Uber says the medical bills are likely to get paid by the client.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\""A\"A police car arrives at the scene of an automobile accident in San Bernardino in 2021. Photo via iStock Photo<\/p>\n

The way Saeltzer and other opponents of the measure read it is that medical expenses from a vehicle accident must come out of an attorney\u2019s 25% share of a settlement. Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said it\u2019s because of the language that a victim must retain 75% of the total amount recovered, and this part: \u201cMedical expenses, including liens incurred by the automobile accident victim\u2026 are not deductible disbursements or costs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Uber spokesperson John Finley told CalMatters in an email that the company strongly disputes the lawyers\u2019 interpretation. He said medical bills are likely to be paid by the client, \u201cwhich is why the client needs a guarantee that they\u2019ll have enough to pay those bills instead of being left with little to no portion of their recovery.\u201d<\/p>\n

Engstrom, the Stanford law professor, said: \u201cNo doubt, the language is pretty convoluted\u2026 If Uber wanted to create a clear medical bill carveout, it surely could have. They have lots of smart lawyers. You have to wonder why they didn’t.\u201d<\/p>\n

Changing medical-cost recovery<\/p>\n

Mary-Beth Moylan is a University of the Pacific law professor and an expert on California initiatives. When she read that Uber\u2019s measure also proposes limits for medical costs for crash survivors, she said: \u201cI mean, what?\u201d<\/p>\n

Moylan said the many details in Uber\u2019s initiative could have unintended consequences. \u201cThis is the danger of this particularized policy-making by initiative,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lopez, the Providers for Patient Care representative,\u00a0 said uninsured or underinsured survivors of vehicle crashes may not get the medical care they need because the limits mean providers may decline to treat some patients out of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of the costs.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an attempt by Uber to get out of paying for patient care,\u201d Lopez said, adding that such care could be needed long term and that limiting what a responsible party would pay would affect those without health insurance. That could help drive up medical costs for everyone else, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis will affect you, me, anyone who\u2019s ever injured in an auto accident in California,\u201d Lopez said.<\/p>\n

Uber based its proposed limits on a state law that caps payments to out-of-network providers at 125% of Medicare reimbursement rates, said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe current system creates incentives to overbill and overtreat auto accident victims, which increases legal costs and raises premiums statewide,\u201d Arab said.<\/p>\n

Because it would be a constitutional amendment, Uber\u2019s measure requires a higher threshold to qualify for the ballot: more than 874,000 signatures by June 8. By the first week of February, it had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lawyers\u2019 initiatives<\/p>\n

Two of the attorney groups\u2019 proposed measures would treat Uber and other ride-hailing providers like other common transportation carriers such as taxis, buses and trains.\u00a0<\/p>\n

One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies\u2019 liability for sexual misconduct<\/a> against riders or drivers. It would require additional background checks for drivers; monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct; disclosure of a driver safety-risk assessment score based on the driver\u2019s history of sexual misconduct to customers; and more. As an initiative statute, it needs to collect 546,651 signatures by July 1 to get on the ballot and reached the 25% threshold a couple of weeks ago.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Another measure would expand the ride-hailing giant\u2019s liability for passenger and public injuries<\/a>. It would hold the companies responsible for harm to their riders and the public, regardless of the classification of drivers as independent contractors.<\/p>\n

The third measure would prohibit new laws that interfere with people hiring lawyers of their choice<\/a>. It would be a constitutional amendment, and would void Uber\u2019s initiative if both that one and this one are approved by voters.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Uber by the numbers<\/p>\n

Uber\u2019s top executives have told investors during their most recent earnings calls that they expect the company\u2019s lower insurance costs to help drive higher revenue growth. The San Francisco-based company brought in more than $14 billion in revenue last year. The executives have mentioned \u201clegal abuse\u201d and their legislative efforts in different states to drive Uber\u2019s legal and insurance costs down.<\/p>\n

The company has tried to enact measures similar to the one it\u2019s pushing in California elsewhere. Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court found<\/a> that Uber\u2019s description of the effects of a measure that would have capped attorneys\u2019 contingency fees in civil cases to 20% was \u201cmisleading and confusing.\u201d The company and lawyers in that state later reached a deal<\/a> on a bill related to insurance liability.<\/p>\n

In California, Uber recently won a bid to reduce its costs by going not to the voters but through the Legislature. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reduced how much insurance ride-hailing companies are supposed to carry for crashes involving uninsured and underinsured motorists, from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. State Sen. Chris Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, said<\/a> he wanted to help lower fares for rides.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fares for Uber rides in California have generally risen in the past several years. From 2019 to 2025, the average Uber fare in the state rose from $14.11 to $27.15, according to Gridwise, which makes an app that allows gig workers to track their earnings and expenses. Gridwise says its data encompasses more than 800 million trips and more than $8.5 billion in tracked driver earnings.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That aligns with the trajectory of the data from Obi, an app maker that allows users to compare ride-hailing and taxi fares, which shows that from 2021 to 2025, the average Uber fare in California rose from $26.96 to $29.93. Obi\u2019s data is based on information it collects from its 1 million users.<\/p>\n

This article was originally published on CalMatters<\/a> and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives<\/a> license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Levi Sumagaysay, CalMatters This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters. In November,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":191453,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[4480,7,9,8,3986],"class_list":{"0":"post-191452","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-california","8":"tag-ballot-measure","9":"tag-california","10":"tag-california-headlines","11":"tag-california-news","12":"tag-uber"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191452","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191452\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/191453"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}