Rideshare giant Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) is pushing a ballot measure in California that has ignited fierce debate among trial lawyers, consumer advocates, and public safety advocates — coming at a time when the company is simultaneously under intense legal scrutiny for its handling of rider safety and crash accountability.
So far, Uber has put an estimated $12 million into the proposal, which would cap attorney fees and limit certain medical cost recoveries in automobile crash lawsuits. The measure — currently in the signature‑gathering phase to qualify for the November 2026 ballot — would impose a ceiling on contingency fees (reportedly around 25% of a settlement or judgment) and tighten rules governing how accident victims can recover medical expenses.
Supporters and Opponents
Supporters say the initiative would protect Californians from “predatory” practices by some personal injury lawyers and reduce legal costs statewide. Opponents argue it would undermine injured victims’ access to justice and reduce accountability for dangerous conduct behind the wheel.
One of those opponents is the non-profit Consumer Watchdog, which claimed in a statement that Uber is seeking to “take away injured consumers’ right to full medical recovery” and restrict their choice of legal representation on contingency. A campaign video released by the watchdog calls the ballot initiative “a license to kill,” alleging Uber plans to deploy advanced robotaxi technology in tandem with legal shields that would make it harder for victims to pursue full compensation.
So far, the state’s leading transportation safety and advocacy groups are holding their fire on the measure. Streetsblog reached out to groups across the state and only heard back from Streets Are For Everyone.
“It's early on this measure, and it's hard for me to make a definitive statement on whether this will be good or bad for what SAFE cares about most — road safety,” writes SAFE executive director Damian Kevitt. “Is the ballot measure being pushed by Uber the solution to everything that's wrong with the insurance/personal injury attorney economic engine? Hardly! But creating regulation to rein in dishonest and predatory attorney practices may not be a bad idea. What we do know is that 'Big Uber' has done the math and sees that spending 12+ million dollars to get this ballot measure passed will save them a lot more money in the long run, so they are willing to play the game.”
Legal actions against Uber
The debate over the ballot measure is unfolding against the backdrop of two high‑profile legal fights that have put Uber’s safety practices under a microscope.
In one major development, a bellwether sexual assault litigation in California state court — part of a consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving hundreds of claims — resulted in a jury finding that Uber was negligent in its safety measures, but not legally liable for the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The first jury verdict in the federal MDL did not assign Uber legal liability because it concluded that the company’s negligence did not legally cause the assault in that specific case, although the finding highlighted questions about the sufficiency of Uber’s safety protocols. A new federal bellwether trial began in early January, signaling continued judicial scrutiny of Uber’s practices.
Separately, in a California Superior Court crash case, a judge recently allowed punitive damages claims against Uber after discovery indicated the company may have retained a driver despite multiple safety complaints — a ruling that could expose the company to more severe financial penalties in future litigation. This marks a shift in how courts may treat serious injury cases involving Uber drivers.
As the signature deadline approaches and litigation continues to unfold, the ballot measure campaign stands poised to become a defining clash over corporate accountability, consumer rights, and the future of legal recourse for Californians harmed in rideshare‑related incidents.
