Uber’s proposed California ballot measure has drawn attorneys, doctors, and medical providers into a high-stakes conversation over how auto crash claims should work. The proposal can cap personal injury attorney fees in California auto crash cases at 25%, require victims to keep 75% of settlements, and limit how medical expenses can be recovered after a crash.
“Uber just dropped $77M to cap your contingency fees and limit how medical damages are calculated in California. And if it passes, it won’t stop there. This ballot measure is a direct threat to the economics of personal injury law and every PI attorney in the country should be paying attention,” says Darrin Zehr, Gain Servicing’s Director of Law Firm Business Development.
“If legislation like this passes, it raises a serious concern: how will injured victims obtain timely medical treatment? Many providers who treat patients on a lien basis already wait years to be reimbursed, and drastically limiting reimbursement to Medicare-level rates would make that model financially unsustainable,” explains Eliezer Nerenberg, Gain’s Vice President of Corporate Development. “If doctors are no longer willing or able to treat these patients, access to care will suffer, leaving many accident victims without the treatment they need and fundamentally disrupting the personal injury system designed to help them recover.”
What does this mean for PI attorneys?
Eliezer adds that the proposal could also change how attorneys evaluate and pursue auto crash cases.
“When attorney fees are capped at 25%, it becomes much harder for personal injury attorneys to properly litigate cases or take them to trial,” he explains. “That creates a stronger incentive to settle early, before litigation, because the resources may not be there to fully pursue the case. And when that happens, who ultimately benefits? The insurance companies.”
Who does this measure apply to?
The measure would apply to all vehicle crashes in California, not only crashes involving Uber. That detail has made the proposal much broader than a dispute between one rideshare company and the lawyers who sue it. If voters approve it, the measure could change how crash victims, attorneys, medical providers, insurers, and the state handle personal injury claims across California.
Uber has framed the proposal as a way to protect accident victims from excessive legal fees and inflated medical costs. Uber’s campaign argues that the current system can reward “billboard lawyers” who take large portions of settlements while encouraging higher medical bills and unnecessary treatment.
Below, we present five things to know now.
1. Personal injury attorneys and medical providers see the proposal differently.
They argue the measure could make serious crash cases harder to bring, especially for people with major injuries and large medical bills. Their concern is not only how much attorneys would be paid. It is whether attorneys would still take expensive, complicated cases if the financial risk becomes too high.
Contingency fees are central to that concern. In many personal injury cases, clients do not pay their lawyers upfront. Instead, the lawyer takes the case on contingency and receives a percentage of the final settlement or award if the case succeeds. If the case fails, the lawyer is not paid. This model allows injured people without cash on hand to pursue a claim. It also means attorneys absorb the upfront costs of litigation, which can include medical records, expert witnesses, depositions, translators, and years of case preparation.
Reported the San Francisco Standard, these claims can become costly. In 2020, a corporate shuttle bus carrying Genentech employees crashed into a Toyota Camry in South San Francisco. The driver of the Camry was six months pregnant. She was hospitalized for three weeks. Her premature baby spent nearly three months in the NICU. Their medical bills totaled over $1.6 million. The family hired a personal injury attorney on contingency, and the case ultimately settled for $3.4 million after four years.
2. For Uber, cases like that raise questions.
For example, new questions are emerging on how attorney fees and settlements should be divided. For opponents, they show why contingency representation exists. People with severe injuries may not be able to pay a lawyer by the hour. If fewer attorneys take those cases, opponents argue, the people with the greatest medical needs may have fewer paths to compensation.
Doctors and medical providers have also become part of the debate because the measure would affect how medical expenses are recovered. Reports CalMatters, Uber’s proposal would limit recovery for liens and future medical expenses by tying them to Medicare and Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. This would make Providers much less likely and willing to to treat uninsured or underinsured crash victims on a lien basis because now they have to wait 2 years for a medicare reimburstment rate!!??
That could shift costs elsewhere. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure could save California courts tens of millions of dollars each year if fewer auto accident cases are filed. But Medi-Cal costs could rise by tens of millions of dollars because the state may recover less money from settlements.
3. The money behind the campaign has also grown quickly.
In February, as CalMatters reported, Uber had put about $32.5 million into its effort, while opponents had committed about $55 million. Medical providers had formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, to oppose the proposal. Attorney groups had also responded with their own proposed measures.
By May, as The San Francisco Standard reported, Uber had contributed more over $77.5 million as the sole donor to its California campaign committee. Attorneys and their allies had raised around $75 million for their own measure focused on rideshare safety. Together, the competing proposals have turned this into one of the most expensive ballot conversations of the year.
The attorneys’ measure focuses on Uber and other rideshare companies more directly. It would require stronger annual background checks, monthly public reporting of sexual misconduct incidents, and disclosure of internal driver risk scores to passengers before rides. The proposal comes as Uber faces thousands of sexual assault claims involving drivers across the country.
The broader context is Uber’s long-running effort to reduce legal and insurance costs. Reports CalMatters, Uber executives have discussed legal costs and insurance reform with investors, and the company previously backed Proposition 22, the 2020 California measure that allowed app-based companies to continue treating drivers as independent contractors.
Says the San Francisco Standard, Uber’s insurance reserves grew from $9.8 billion to $12.5 billion in 2025. Executive cash bonuses for 2025 were tied in part to “insurance reform advocacy efforts.”
4. Another emerging issue is autonomous vehicles.
Some critics argue limiting liability in auto crash cases could become even more significant as rideshare companies move toward driverless technology. Uber disputes that the measure is aimed at reducing robotaxi liability. Still, opponents argue that lawsuits can create pressure for companies to improve safety when crashes occur.
5. It’s not yet clear what this all may mean for voters.
For voters, the proposal may come down to two very different readings of the same measure. Uber says it would protect crash victims from excessive legal fees and questionable medical billing. Attorneys, doctors, and medical providers say it could reduce access to legal representation, limit medical recovery, and make serious injury cases harder to pursue.
What began as a proposal about attorney fees has become a much larger debate over who pays after a crash, who gets access to the courts, and how California should balance legal costs, medical care, and corporate liability.
Final Thoughts: What PI Firms Should Watch Next
This proposal is about more than attorney fees. It raises larger questions about how crash victims get legal representation, how medical providers are reimbursed, and how PI firms manage cases when treatment costs, liens, reductions, and settlement timelines are under pressure.
That makes operational visibility even more important. PI attorneys need fast access to bills, records, treatment updates, payoff amounts, and reduction details so they can keep cases moving with fewer delays.
How can Gain help? Gain Servicing helps law firms manage that complexity in one place, giving teams clearer access to the case-critical financial and medical information they need. Request a demo of our attorney portal here: https://gainservicing.com/attorney-consult/