Uber, trial lawyers reach deal to avert ballot fight

Uber Technologies Inc. and the Consumer Attorneys of California have reached a deal to avert a costly ballot fight, according to multiple sources speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that's safe, fair, and accountable," read a joint statement provided by a campaign spokesperson for the attorneys group, CAOC. "This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures. We look forward to working with the California Legislature to pass this legislation."

The deal is the result of marathon talks between the sides in recent weeks. It includes elements both sides were seeking at the ballot box: stricter limits on medical damages in car crash lawsuits, as Uber sought, while imposing the new rideshare safety requirements pushed by CAOC.

Both sides have qualified initiatives for the November ballot, according to a Wednesday update from Secretary of State Shirley Weber's office. Uber's measure would cap attorney fees and medical recovery in auto accident cases. CAOC's initiative would expand rideshare companies' liability when their drivers commit sexual assaults, among other changes.

Next Thursday is the last day for sponsors to pull measures from the fall ballot. Any aspects of the deal that require legislation would need to be enacted in time for the sides to withdraw their measures. Bills must also be in print 72 hours before they are voted on, meaning language would need to be hammered out by the end of the coming weekend.

If these timelines can be met, the sides will avert a bruising fight that could have easily cost each of them more than $100 million.

According to state campaign finance records, the CAOC-backed Alliance Against Corporate Abuse campaign committee has raised $77 million, mainly from trial attorneys. It has spent at least $17 million on petition circulation and $1.6 million on advertising.

Uber has poured a similar amount into its committee, A More Affordable California. It has spent more than a third of that money, according to state campaign finance documents. The tracking website Transparency USA put that current number far higher, at more than $42 million. This spending included a commercial during the Super Bowl in February, inviting people to tell their stories if they have been "scammed by your lawyer."

Plaintiffs' attorneys have warned that Uber's initiative could be devastating for people injured in car accidents, even if no rideshare drivers are involved. It would limit attorney contingency fees to 25% after litigation costs. At this level, some attorneys warned it would cease to make economic sense to take most injury cases. When he took office in November, CAOC President Douglas S. Saeltzer labeled himself a "wartime president" as he prepared to take on the ballot fight.

"The opponents' claims are patently false - and a desperate ploy by ambulance attorneys who want to continue ripping off accident victims," said Nathan Click, a spokesman for the Preventing Accident Victims from Self-Dealing Attorneys Act of 2026, in an email when reached about these claims in February. "The initiative doesn't require or even suggest that medical expenses be paid out of attorney contingency fees."

CAOC's initiative would classify rideshare companies as so-called common carriers under California law. That would put rideshare companies in the same legal category as taxis, buses and trains, requiring them to exercise a heightened duty of care toward passengers. It would also increase these companies' liability for sexual assaults by drivers, regardless of whether they are classified as independent contractors.

The deal, assuming it goes through, is reminiscent of the 2022 agreement involving trial attorneys, CAOC, and the California Medical Association. Those parties fended off a voter initiative that would have lifted medical damages caps in California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 in exchange for a less aggressive schedule for increasing recovery by plaintiffs. That agreement was reached in May, however, weeks ahead of the ballot deadline.

There has been a growing appetite among some plaintiffs' attorneys to rein in some of the more questionable practices in the field. Last year, CAOC sponsored two new laws. AB 931 put new restrictions on consumer legal funding, while SB 37 did the same for attorney advertising.

Meanwhile, Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., has been pushing a rideshare liability shield in Congress. His amendments to a pending transportation bill would limit vicarious liability and some state-law claims for damages caused by drivers. A group of Democratic lawmakers, including several members of the California delegation, sent a letter to House leaders last week asking them "to strip out a provision ... that would endanger consumers across the United States."