Uber's Push to Cap Attorney Fees Sets Stage for Costly California Ballot Fight

The core of the conflict: Uber's "fairness" vs. lawyers' "access to justice"

The proposed ballot measure, for which Uber is currently gathering signatures, centers on a single, potent change: capping attorney fees in car crash cases at 25% of a client's settlement or award. Currently, contingency fees in such personal injury cases typically range from 33% to 40%.

Uber frames this as a straightforward reform to put victims first. The company argues that the current system incentivizes predatory legal practices, in which attorneys partner with doctors to inflate medical bills for unnecessary procedures, thereby increasing the total settlement and their 33-40% cut. Uber's Head of Public Policy, Adam Blinick, stated the measure targets "common-sense reforms that will protect auto accident victims and lower costs."

The personal injury bar sees a vastly different motive. They contend the cap is a "Trojan horse" designed to make it financially unfeasible for lawyers to take on car crash cases, especially smaller or more complex ones. Under a contingency fee model, lawyers assume all financial risk, fronting costs for investigations, expert witnesses, and court filings, and only get paid if they win. At a 25% cap, they argue, this model would be decimated. Nicholas Rowley, a lawyer leading the opposition, asserts the law is "designed to wipe out ordinary working people's ability to get representation."

Escalation and context: Why Uber is making this move now

This ballot push is not happening in a vacuum. It is the latest escalation in a "long-simmering fight" between Uber and prominent Southern California law firms that have made the company a frequent litigation target. To intensify the conflict, Uber has filed federal racketeering (RICO) lawsuits against two major firms—Downtown LA Law Group (DTLA) and attorney Jacob Emrani—alleging they operated schemes with medical providers to inflate bills.

The legal industry is also under unusual public scrutiny. Recent investigations by the Los Angeles Times have reported on allegations of fraudulent lawsuits and unethical conduct by firms specializing in personal injury. Even Governor Gavin Newsom's office has commented, stating the legal system should not be "a business model that uses survivors... as a revenue stream." This climate has led some within the legal community to admit, as Rowley did, "we could do a better job policing ourselves."

The stakes for Californians: Potential winners and losers

The campaign rhetoric paints two starkly different futures for California accident victims. Understanding the potential impacts requires looking beyond the surface.

• The stated goal: Uber's central promise is that victims will keep more of their settlement—75% instead of 60-67%. However, lawyers counter that the math isn't that simple. The proposal also requires case costs (like expert witnesses) to be deducted before the 75/25 split, which could significantly reduce the total pot of money being divided
• The critical unknown: Who pays for medical care? A major point of contention is who covers a victim's medical bills, which are often paid out of the settlement. Lawyers argue that to guarantee the victim gets 75%, they would have to pay these bills themselves, potentially leaving them with nothing. Uber says this issue is "not contemplated by the measure," implying the victim would still pay, which could negate the benefit of a higher percentage
• Access to justice vs. lawsuit abuse: The trial lawyers' most powerful argument is that the cap will make it economically impossible to represent clients with modest claims or difficult cases, leaving them without legal recourse. Uber and supporters of reform counter that the current system is rife with abuse, encouraging frivolous litigation and inflated claims that drive up costs for everyone

The road ahead: A brutal and expensive political war

This proposal is far from a done deal. The path to November is paved with signatures, advertising, and intense political warfare.

• A well-funded opposition: The opposition, led by the Consumer Attorneys of California, has already raised a war chest exceeding $46 million, including nearly $1 million from famed billboard firms Sweet James and Jacoby & Meyers. A doctor-led PAC has also raised over $4 million, arguing the measure would limit patients' access to care
• Countermeasures and mudslinging: The trial lawyers are not just playing defense. They have proposed three counter-ballot measures, including one to increase Uber's liability in sexual assault cases involving drivers—a direct response to recent New York Times investigations. Billboards have already appeared attacking Uber's safety record, branding the fee cap a "license to kill" measure that would pave the way for unaccountable robotaxis, a claim Uber vehemently denies
• The voter's dilemma: Ultimately, California voters will be asked to decide whom they trust: a global corporation positioning itself as a consumer champion against high legal costs, or an industry of advocates arguing they are the last defense for the injured against corporate negligence. The campaign will likely hinge on which narrative resonates more—the promise of putting more cash in victims' pockets or the fear of shutting the courthouse doors to those who need it most

This battle highlights the fragile ecosystem of personal injury law. The contingency fee model exists precisely to provide access to justice for those who cannot afford hourly legal rates. While reforms to curb genuine abuse may be needed, sweeping changes can have profound, unintended consequences on the ability to hold powerful entities accountable. As this costly fight unfolds, it serves as a critical reminder of the value of skilled legal representation and the complex systems that govern recovery after an accident.

The network of independent attorneys we connect you with remains committed to advocating for victims' rights within the evolving legal landscape, ensuring that those harmed have a dedicated advocate in their corner.