Uber’s Ballot Measure vs. Crash Victims: What California Voters Aren’t Being Told and How Uber’s Initiative Caps Care and Shields Rideshare Giants
March 25, 2026 | Article by Chain | Cohn | Clark staff Social Share
Uber is asking Californians to sign away their rights, and most people don’t even realize it.
Behind friendly language about “reining in billboard lawyers” and “cutting medical costs,” the company is bankrolling a ballot measure that would make it harder for crash victims to get medical care, hire an attorney, and hold dangerous rideshare companies accountable when something goes terribly wrong.
“Our clients don’t wake up wanting to sue a corporation. They come to us after a drunk driver, a distracted Uber driver, or a sexual predator in a rideshare destroys their life,” said Matt Clark, managing partner and attorney at the Law Office of Chain | Cohn | Clark. “Uber’s initiative would slam the courthouse doors in their faces.”
CalMatters reports that Uber has filed a sweeping California ballot initiative that would change the rules in every motor‑vehicle crash case in the state, not just rideshare collisions. On paper, the measure sounds consumer‑friendly: it says injured people should keep 75% of any settlement or verdict, and it claims to curb “greedy lawyers.” But the fine print tells a different story:
- Caps contingency fees so that lawyers and case costs must fit inside the remaining 25%, effectively a price control on legal help.
- Limits medical damages by capping recoverable medical costs at 125% of Medicare and 170% of Medi‑Cal rates, no matter what the victim actually owes for treatment.
- Raises the burden of proof for recovering medical expenses and makes it harder to use medical liens, which many seriously injured people rely on when they can’t pay upfront.
- Applies to all auto crashes in California — drivers, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians — whether or not an Uber was involved.
Consumer advocates and legal experts warn that these changes would discourage attorneys from taking many legitimate cases, especially complex or lower‑dollar claims, because the capped fees and tight medical rules simply wouldn’t cover the cost of litigating against a multibillion‑dollar corporation. As Stanford law professor Nora Engstrom put it, the measure “looks unthreatening” but would function as a price control that hurts consumers by shrinking access to legal representation.
From the outside, Uber’s proposal is framed as saving victims money. In reality, it shifts costs onto victims, their families, and taxpayers while reducing what corporations have to pay when they cause harm.
If Uber’s initiative passes:
- Many seriously injured people won’t be able to find a lawyer at all. Complex cases involving brain injuries, spinal damage, or wrongful death require experts, investigations, and years of work, all fronted by the law firm. A hard 25% cap that must also cover costs makes those cases financially impossible for many firms.
- Victims could be stuck with medical bills that exceed what the law lets them recover, especially if hospitals or specialists charge more than low government reimbursement rates.
- Doctors may stop treating crash victims on liens, because they know they may never be paid fairly under the new caps, leaving many people without access to needed care.
As one consumer advocate put it, “Voters need to read what they’re signing because what they are being asked to sign away is their right to full medical recovery in accidents and the right to contract with an attorney of their choice.”
And this ballot fight is happening at the same time Uber is planning to redeploy self‑driving cars and robotaxis on California roads in late 2026, despite past safety failures, including the first robotaxi pedestrian death in Arizona, where investigators found an “inadequate safety culture” and a vehicle that didn’t brake even after detecting the victim.
In response, consumer attorneys, doctors, and safety advocates have filed two counter‑initiatives aimed at protecting crash victims and making rideshare companies safer and more accountable. Chain | Cohn | Clark is helping gather signatures and educate Kern County residents about what’s at stake.
This measure is designed to block Uber’s attempt to rewrite attorney‑fee rules and protect Californians’ ability to hire a lawyer after a crash. It would prohibit corporations from using ballot initiatives to interfere with a person’s right to contract with legal counsel, especially contingency‑fee agreements. It would also invalidate any conflicting provisions, including those in Uber’s measure, that limit a victim’s ability to hire an attorney on a contingency basis. Lastly, it makes clear that courts keep full power to regulate the practice of law and police excessive or illegal fees, preserving existing safeguards.
In plain language: if voters pass this act, Uber’s fee caps and restrictions on lawyer‑client contracts would be nullified, and injured people would keep the same access to contingency‑fee representation they rely on today.
The second measure focuses on safety and accountability inside rideshare vehicles, responding to years of reports about sexual assaults and violent misconduct. It would require annual fingerprinting and background checks for rideshare drivers, closing gaps that have allowed dangerous individuals to keep driving. It would also classify rideshare companies as “common carriers,” the same standard that applies to taxis, buses, and trains, imposing a higher duty of care for passengers. Third, it would make companies like Uber legally responsible when their negligence contributes to sexual assaults or other harms, instead of letting them hide behind “independent contractor” labels. Lastly, it mandates monthly public reporting of sexual misconduct incidents and require warnings to riders when a matched driver has known risk factors.
Court records and Uber’s own disclosures have shown reports of sexual misconduct occurring with alarming frequency, one analysis cited in the measure notes that Uber has received a report of sexual misconduct about every eight minutes in recent years. These reforms aim to force real prevention and transparency, not just PR statements.
Chain | Cohn | Clark is not neutral in this debate, and for good reason. The firm has represented countless car‑crash and rideshare victims across Kern County who depended on contingency‑fee representation to stand up to powerful insurers and corporations.
The law firm is hosting a community signature drive at its downtown Bakersfield office so voters can support these pro‑victim initiatives and push back against Uber’s proposal, and educating the public through radio, social media, and community outreach about how Uber’s initiative would cap medical recovery, restrict access to lawyers, and reduce rideshare accountability. Chain | Cohn | Clark is also continuing its core work: representing people injured in crashes, including those involving Uber and Lyft drivers, and fighting for full compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and long‑term care.
“No one should lose their right to hire a lawyer or seek justice because a corporation is trying to change the rules in its favor,” attorney Matt Clark said. “These initiatives are about protecting everyday people, not billboard lawyers or billion‑dollar companies.”
If you care about safe transportation and fair access to justice in California, here are concrete steps you can take:
- Learn the difference between Uber’s initiative and the competing measures. Don’t rely on slogans; read summaries from neutral outlets like CalMatters and from victim‑advocacy groups.
- Be cautious about what you sign. Signature gatherers are already in front of stores and public places. Before signing any petition about “lowering legal fees” or “cutting insurance costs,” ask to see the full title and summary, and remember what’s at stake.
- Sign the pro‑victim initiatives, the People’s Right to Contract With Counsel of Choice Act and the Sexual Assault Against Rideshare Passengers and Drivers Prevention and Accountability Act, when you see them, or at Chain | Cohn | Clark’s signature events.
- Share the information. Talk to family, friends, coworkers, and especially frequent rideshare users about how these measures could affect their rights if they’re ever hurt.
———
If you or someone you know is injured in an accident at the fault of someone else, or injured on the job no matter whose fault it is, contact the attorneys at Chain | Cohn | Clark by calling (661) 323-4000, or fill out a free consultation form, text, or chat with us at chainlaw.com.
