For years, Uber has worked relentlessly to avoid being held accountable for harm occurring through its platform. Faced with frequent litigation and scrutiny over sexual assault claims arising from its app-arranged rides, Uber has continually pursued legal strategies to limit responsibility and liability at the expense of its customers. More recently, Uber reduced uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage available to injured passengers from up to $1 million to as little as $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, limiting their exposure and leaving injured riders increasingly dependent on finding other sources of recovery.
Today, Uber customers are again under attack. Currently in the petition stage, Uber is funding a 2026 California ballot initiative, that, if enacted, could significantly affect Uber passengers involved in auto crashes by impacting client recoveries and attorney contingency fees.
Uber’s ballot initiative would impose a 25 percent cap on contingency fees, calculated after litigation costs are deducted. In practice, this means that attorneys would be required to cover case costs (which can often be substantial) and recover their fees only after those expenses are reimbursed.
Uber is framing this “reform” as beneficial to injured individuals, suggesting it will allow them to retain a larger percentage of their recovery. However, as the measure would require litigation costs to be paid before the attorney and client recover their earning percentage, it could actually reduce the recovery value for a client with high case costs.
Personal injury litigation can quickly become expensive to pursue due to the high costs of expert witnesses, depositions, medical evaluations, and other factors. Under Uber’s reform, attorneys would confront the same financial risks while facing reduced potential recovery. As a result, cases involving moderate damages, disputed liability, or higher litigation costs may become increasingly difficult or risky to pursue.
This initiative will limit injured individuals’ ability to obtain representation by making contingency-fee cases less economically feasible for attorneys to accept. This concern is particularly relevant in places like Santa Barbara, where many firms handle a mix of mid-range injury claims as well as other types of cases.
Contingency fee arrangements have long ensured that all injured individuals can pursue justice, regardless of their financial means. Uber’s initiative directly threatens this equal access to justice, particularly for injured individuals with smaller or more complex cases.
Uber’s attempts to qualify this measure for the ballot involve a large-scale and widespread effort, including substantial funding, public messaging campaigns, and organized events to gather signatures. If successful, the measure could reshape the structure of personal injury and contingency fee practice across California and hurt consumers’ access to justice.
Uber has filed the initiative with the California Secretary of State and needs to collect over 874,000 signatures by June 8th to qualify to appear on a future statewide ballot. According to the California Secretary of State, as of early February, it had already secured 25 percent of the needed signatures.
As the initiative moves forward, attorneys must take an active role in protecting the rights of both injured individuals and their fellow lawyers. Organizations such as the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) and Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) are examples of groups actively coordinating opposition efforts through legislative advocacy, public education campaigns, and collaboration with medical, labor, and consumer groups.
Attorneys can support these efforts by contributing to advocacy and defense funds, participating in signature-gathering opposition and community outreach, and educating clients, colleagues, and local organizations about the true consequences of the measure on access to justice.
Engagement at both the professional and local levels will be crucial to prevent the success of Uber’s efforts. For Santa Barbara attorneys in particular, involvement through local bar associations and affinity groups such as the Santa Barbara Trial Lawyers can help ensure that the real consequences of the initiative are clearly understood before it reaches voters.
Renée Nordstrand-Black is the founding partner of NordstrandBlack PC in Santa Barbara, a successful trial lawyer, and certified negotiator with over 35 years of experience in personal injury and wrongful death matters. She received the Santa Barbara Women Lawyers Attorney of the Year Award and was the former president of Santa Barbara Women Lawyers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.