California Accident Attorneys Blog
By Steven M. Sweat | California Accident Attorneys Blog | Published May 2026
| Quick Summary
Uber is circulating a petition to place Initiative #25-0022 on the November 2026 California ballot. The petition has a June 8, 2026 signature deadline. Despite its consumer-friendly name, the measure would cap attorney contingency fees in auto accident cases at 25%, dramatically limit what injured victims can recover for medical expenses, and ban doctor-attorney referral arrangements — making it economically difficult or impossible for attorneys to take serious injury cases. The result for crash victims: less access to representation, lower medical reimbursements, and more power shifted to insurance companies. If you are approached by a signature gatherer, read this before you sign. |
What Is Happening Right Now
Signature gatherers are working parking lots, shopping centers, and street corners across California this month. They are collecting signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment officially titled the “Protecting Automobile Accident Victims From Attorney Self-Dealing Act of 2026” (Initiative #25-0022). To qualify for the November 3, 2026 ballot, supporters must collect more than 874,000 valid voter signatures by June 8, 2026.
The campaign is funded almost entirely by one corporation: Uber Technologies. As of early 2026, Uber had committed more than $77.5 million as the sole donor to its campaign committee, “A More Affordable California.”
Opponents — including the Consumer Attorneys of California, the California Medical Association, and a coalition of doctors and patient advocates — have raised roughly $55 million to fight the measure and advance three counter-initiatives of their own.
This is the most expensive ballot fight over personal injury law in California history. And ordinary crash victims are being asked to take a side without knowing what they’re signing.
What the Measure Actually Does
The pitch sounds straightforward: “victims keep at least 75% of their settlement.” That framing is intentionally misleading. Here is what the measure actually does:
1. Caps Attorney Contingency Fees at 25%
Under current California law, personal injury attorneys typically charge a contingency fee of 33% for pre-litigation settlements and up to 40% for cases that go to trial. The measure would cap fees — including all case costs advanced by the attorney — at 25% in auto accident cases.
The problem: serious injury cases are expensive to litigate. Expert witnesses, depositions, court reporters, trial exhibits, and investigation costs routinely run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Under this cap, a lawyer who advances $50,000 in costs on a $200,000 case would be capped at $50,000 total — meaning the firm might break even or lose money. The rational response for most attorneys: don’t take the case.
Stanford law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom has described this type of fee cap as equivalent to a price control — one that restricts supply and ultimately harms the consumers it claims to protect. The result is not “less money to lawyers.” It is no lawyer at all for many injured people.
2. Limits Medical Expense Recovery
The measure would also cap what injured people can recover for medical expenses, tying reimbursement rates to Medicare and Medi-Cal — rates that are a fraction of what California providers actually charge.
A real-world example offered by opponents: a cervical MRI typically costs around $2,300 in California. Under the proposed measure, reimbursement would be approximately $350 — roughly 15 cents on the dollar. At those rates, doctors and imaging centers will simply stop treating uninsured crash victims on medical liens, because there’s no viable path to payment.
For victims who don’t have health insurance at the time of an accident — a significant percentage of crash victims in Los Angeles — this means no access to the specialists needed to document and treat their injuries.
3. Bans Attorney-Medical Provider Referral Arrangements
The measure would prohibit attorneys from referring clients to medical providers in which the attorney has any financial interest. While there are legitimate concerns about kickback arrangements in some parts of the industry, the measure is written so broadly that it would disrupt established, ethical referral practices that connect injured clients with qualified specialists willing to treat on a lien basis.
For many uninsured or underinsured crash victims, an attorney’s referral to a treating provider is the only path to getting medical care at all. Removing that option without replacing it leaves a gap that insurance companies — and Uber in particular — benefit from directly.
4. Applies to Every California Auto Accident — Not Just Uber Cases
This point is critical and frequently misunderstood. The measure does not apply only to Uber-related crashes. It applies to every automobile accident in California. Uber — a corporation that faces massive liability from vehicle accidents involving its drivers and its platforms — would benefit from this measure in every California claim it is ever named in.
The Claims vs. The Reality
| What Uber Claims | What the Fine Print Actually Says |
| “Victims keep 75% of settlements” | The 25% cap covers attorney fees AND all case costs, making serious injury cases economically impossible for attorneys to take |
| “Cracks down on insurance fraud” | Limits apply equally to all crash victims regardless of any fraud; legitimate victims bear the burden |
| “Reduces inflated medical billing” | Ties reimbursement to Medicare rates, causing doctors to stop treating crash victims on liens |
| “Consumer protection measure” | Uber is the primary funder with $77.5M committed; applies to every California auto accident, not just rideshare cases |
| “Prevents attorney kickbacks” | Ban is written so broadly it cuts off legitimate referral pipelines that give uninsured victims access to care |
Who Gets Hurt If This Passes
The people most harmed by this measure are not people with minor fender-benders. They are:
- Crash victims with serious injuries who need experienced attorneys to fight insurance companies with professional claims teams and defense lawyers
- Uninsured and underinsured victims who rely on attorney-arranged medical liens to get the care they need while their case is pending
- Victims of catastrophic crashes — traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, amputations — whose cases cost the most to litigate and would be the first abandoned under a 25% cost-and-fee cap
- Medi-Cal recipients, whose cases, if abandoned by attorneys, generate no settlements for the state to recover from — shifting the cost to California taxpayers
- Anyone who suffers a serious injury while riding in an Uber or Lyft, since Uber’s measure would reduce its own liability while also making it harder for victims to find lawyers willing to take the case
The Broader Context: What Uber Is Actually Trying to Accomplish
Uber has been fighting to reduce its legal exposure in California for years. In 2020, the company spent more than $200 million to pass Proposition 22, classifying its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees — a change that limited its direct liability for driver conduct. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22 in 2024.
In 2025, Uber lobbied successfully for Senate Bill 371, signed by Governor Newsom, which reduced the mandatory uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for ride-hailing passengers from $1 million to $60,000 per person — a 94% reduction in the per-person coverage backstop that protected passengers when third-party drivers caused crashes. For a full analysis of what SB 371 means for rideshare victims, see: What If the Other Driver Was at Fault in a Rideshare Accident?.
Initiative #25-0022 is the next step in that same campaign. If it passes, Uber will face fewer lawsuits, smaller judgments, and a plaintiff’s bar that has been systematically priced out of serious injury litigation. The legislative analyst has estimated that if the measure passes, fewer lawsuits will be filed — saving trial courts tens of millions annually while increasing Medi-Cal costs by a comparable amount.
What to Do If You Are Approached by a Signature Gatherer
You are under no obligation to sign any petition. Before you do, consider:
- Ask who is funding the campaign. A More Affordable California is Uber’s committee. The $77.5 million came from one corporation.
- Read the actual initiative text, not just the summary on the clipboard. The Ballotpedia page for Initiative #25-0022 has a neutral summary and the full text.
- Consider who benefits. A fee cap on plaintiff attorneys has no cap on defense attorneys — the lawyers insurance companies pay to fight your claim.
- Think about the last time you or someone you knew was injured in a car accident. Would you have wanted the option of retaining an experienced attorney on contingency? This measure would make that option unavailable in many serious cases.
The Counter-Initiatives: What Plaintiff Attorneys Are Proposing
In response to Uber’s measure, the plaintiff’s bar has filed three competing initiatives. One would expand Uber’s liability for passenger injuries by treating it as a common carrier — held to the same standard as buses and taxis. A second would increase Uber’s liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers and require enhanced background checks and monthly reporting. A third would prohibit new state laws that interfere with Californians’ right to retain attorneys on contingency.
None of the counter-initiatives had qualified for the ballot as of early May 2026 — but the signature deadline for those measures extends to July 1, giving the plaintiffs’ bar more time than Uber’s June 8 deadline.
How Contingency Fees Actually Work — And Why They Matter for Access to Justice
The contingency fee model exists for one reason: so that the financial resources of the injured party — or the absence of them — do not determine whether that person can hire an experienced lawyer. Under the current system, a working-class person injured by a distracted driver has access to the same quality of representation as someone with a trust fund, because the attorney’s fee comes from the recovery, not from the client’s savings account.
The Insurance Research Council — an industry-funded organization that studies claim outcomes specifically to help insurers manage their costs — has documented for decades that represented claimants recover, on average, roughly 3.5 times more than unrepresented claimants. That figure is
net of attorney fees. After the lawyer is paid, the represented client still walks away with materially more money. A 25% fee cap would not give more money to victims. It would give more leverage to insurance companies.
For a detailed breakdown of what a California personal injury settlement actually looks like after fees, costs, and liens, see: How Much Do I Actually Take Home From a Personal Injury Settlement in California?.
| Were You Injured in a California Car Accident?
If you or a family member has been injured in an automobile, motorcycle, truck, or rideshare accident in California, the legal landscape is changing — and the window to act under current protections is now. Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC has represented injured Californians for more than 30 years, and we handle every case on a strict contingency fee basis: no fee unless we recover. Call us 24/7 at (866) 966-5240, or visit victimslawyer.com for a free, no-obligation consultation. Se habla español. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I sign the Uber petition circulating in California right now?
That is your decision, but you should understand what you’re signing. The petition would place a constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot that caps attorney contingency fees in auto accident cases at 25%, limits what injured victims can recover for medical expenses, and bans certain referral arrangements between attorneys and treating physicians. The measure is funded primarily by Uber, which would benefit directly if it passes. Multiple law professors and consumer groups — including Consumer Watchdog — oppose it. Read the full initiative text before deciding.
What is the deadline to collect signatures for Uber’s ballot measure?
Supporters of Initiative #25-0022 must collect more than 874,000 valid California voter signatures by June 8, 2026 for the measure to qualify for the November 3, 2026 ballot.
Does this initiative only affect Uber accident cases?
No. Despite being funded and promoted by Uber, the measure applies to every automobile accident case in California — not just crashes involving Uber vehicles or drivers. Any California resident injured in any car, truck, motorcycle, or rideshare accident would be affected if the measure passes.
Why do lawyers and doctors oppose the Uber initiative?
Plaintiff attorneys argue that a 25% cap covering both fees and costs makes it economically impossible to litigate serious injury cases, which would leave the most severely injured victims without representation. The California Medical Association and physician groups oppose the measure because tying medical reimbursement to Medicare and Medi-Cal rates — a fraction of actual costs — would cause providers to stop treating crash victims on medical liens, cutting off access to care for uninsured and underinsured patients.
How much do California personal injury attorneys currently charge?
Most California personal injury attorneys charge a contingency fee of approximately 33% for pre-litigation settlements and up to 40% for cases that go to trial. The fee is paid from the recovery — there is no upfront cost to the client, and no fee at all if the case does not result in a recovery.
What are the counter-initiatives filed by plaintiff attorneys?
Three competing measures have been filed. One would expand Uber’s liability for passenger injuries by treating it as a common carrier. A second would increase Uber’s liability for sexual misconduct against riders and drivers and require enhanced background checks. A third would prohibit new state laws that restrict Californians’ access to contingency fee attorneys. The signature deadline for these counter-measures is July 1, 2026.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The information in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this post. Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC · 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90064 · (866) 966-5240 · victimslawyer.com