Uber's New Initiative: A Disguise for Restricting Legal Access for Accident Victims

In October 2025, a significant new ballot initiative titled the "Protection of Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act" was introduced and is set for consideration by voters in the upcoming November 2026 election. This initiative, backed by the rideshare giant Uber, proposes to place limitations on the fees that personal injury attorneys can collect in automobile cases. On the surface, it seems to advocate for consumer protection, with claims of enhancing the amount victims will receive from their settlements.

However, industry experts argue that the initiative operates as a Trojan horse. Its true intent may not be to protect victims, but rather to undermine personal injury lawsuits and minimize the financial liability for rideshare and insurance companies.

Background: A Pattern of Legislative Maneuvering

Uber's involvement in shaping California's laws is not new. Earlier, the company successfully lobbied state legislators to slash the required underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) from $1 million to just $60,000 per person, with a maximum of $300,000 per incident. Although Uber claimed this reduction would lower ride fares while maintaining high coverage standards, the reality was stark; countless accident victims found themselves undercompensated, especially when collisions were caused by underinsured Uber drivers.

The proposed attorney fee limit through the new initiative appears to follow this trajectory, effectively stripping victims of their means to obtain competent legal representation. As drafted, the initiative mandates that accident victims receive 75% of their settlements, while attorneys retain only 25% to cover costs, fees, and medical expenses.

This means contingency-fee lawyers, who typically charge a percentage of settlements, could end up earning less than 12% of the total amount won—resulting in many law firms operating at a loss and going out of business. It constitutes a significant threat to the future of personal injury law practices, leaving accident victims without the crucial support they need to navigate the often daunting legal landscape.

Consequences of Passing the Initiative

The implications are severe and immediate if the initiative gains approval. Personal injury law firms, particularly those focused on auto accidents, could cease to exist altogether. Without sustainable revenue, these practices lack the necessary infrastructure to adequately serve their clients, forcing lawyers to shift their focus to more stable fields.

As a result, insurance companies may substantially lower their compensation offers for serious injuries, knowing that accident victims would face significant barriers to taking their cases to court, given the limited availability of legal counsel. Medical providers might intensify demands for upfront payments, further complicating access to essential health treatments for injured parties.

Moreover, if the initiative passes, rideshare companies like Uber will dodge accountability when their drivers cause catastrophic accidents, leaving victims to fend for themselves in negotiations with billion-dollar insurance behemoths.

This shift creates an environment where only affluent plaintiffs can afford legal representation. Wealthy injury victims can hire attorneys based on an hourly rate, while working-class individuals are effectively excluded from the justice system.

The Threat to Constitutional Rights

The California Constitution enshrines the right of citizens to access the courts. The current contingency-fee arrangement serves as a lifeline, ensuring that all Californians, irrespective of their economic situations, can access legal assistance. The proposed initiative, however, establishes a two-tiered justice system that only benefits wealthy plaintiffs.

When a corporation as large as Uber can influence state laws to shield itself from liability while making it difficult for average individuals to obtain legal representation, it threatens the foundational fairness of our legal system.

Conclusion: What California Voters Must Understand

While the "Protection of Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act" purports to serve vulnerable individuals, it ultimately serves the interests of Uber and the insurance industry. The advocates of this initiative argue that attorneys exploit the predicament of accident victims, but the truth is quite the opposite. Contingency-fee agreements align the interests of attorneys with those of their clients, encouraging both parties to secure maximum settlements.

In contrast, this newly proposed measure would leave injured Californians without access to necessary legal support, forcing them to settle for meager compensation offers. Personal injury law firms like Razavi Law Group are dedicated to protecting the rights of accident victims, emphasizing the stark nature of this initiative.

As California voters, it becomes imperative to look beyond the façade of consumer protection and recognize the initiative for what it truly represents: an attack on the rights of injured individuals disguised as a reform. Razavi Law Group is committed to advocating for the rights of California's injured citizens and urges voters to consider the far-reaching ramifications of this ballot initiative before casting their votes.