Where does the Uber ballot measure stand now?
In mid-June 2026, both Uber’s measure and a competing measure backed by Consumer Attorneys of California gathered enough valid signatures to qualify. California lets proponents pull a qualified initiative up to the day the Secretary of State certifies the ballot. That deadline was June 25, 2026.
On that same day, Governor Newsom signed SB 623 (Chapter 17, Statutes of 2026), a negotiated deal between Uber and the Consumer Attorneys. Both sides withdrew their measures. The Secretary of State’s list of measures certified for November 3, 2026 includes neither one. Two other initiatives filed by the Consumer Attorneys’ side, one on the right to hire a lawyer and one on rideshare liability, are listed by the Secretary of State as failing to qualify.
By the time the deal closed, each side had raised or committed more than $75 million, according to CalMatters.
What would the Uber initiative have done to an injured person’s case?
Start with the official summary. The Attorney General titled it: “Limits automobile accident victims’ recovery of medical expenses and fees their attorneys may receive.” It was an initiative constitutional amendment. Once passed, the Legislature could not fix it. Only another statewide vote could.
Here is what it would have done, in plain terms:
- A 75% rule. The injured person had to keep at least 75% of any recovery. The pitch was simple: 75 for you, 25 for the lawyer. The fight was over what the 25% had to cover. Opponents read the text to push case costs, such as medical records, expert witnesses and filing fees, into that same slice. Uber disputed that reading. A disputed number in a constitutional amendment means years of litigation while injured people wait.
- Caps on medical recovery. According to CalMatters’ reporting on the text, recovery for medical liens and future care would have been capped at 125% of Medicare rates or 170% of Medi-Cal rates. The measure also raised the proof required to recover certain medical costs.
- A ban on lawyer-provider financial ties. It barred referral deals and financial arrangements between injury firms and medical providers.
Take a hypothetical. A woman is rear-ended on the freeway. She has no health insurance, or a plan with a deductible she cannot pay. She treats with a doctor on a medical lien. A medical lien is a promise to pay the doctor out of any settlement. Many uninsured and underinsured Californians rely on liens for care after a crash.
Cap what that lien can recover near Medicare rates, and fewer doctors will treat on lien. She goes without care. Without care, there are no records. Without records, there is no proof. Then she sits across the table from an insurance adjuster whose job is to pay as little as possible. She takes what is offered. Not because it is fair, but because she has nothing to push back with.
The state’s own analysts saw where that leads. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance projected the measure would likely raise state Medi-Cal costs by millions to tens of millions of dollars each year, mostly because crash victims would recover less to cover their care. In other words, taxpayers would pick up costs that the at-fault driver’s insurer used to pay.
What do supporters of the measure say?
Uber and its campaign committee, A More Affordable California, argued that the current system rewards overbilling and overtreatment after car crashes, that referral relationships between some lawyers and lien-based doctors inflate claims, and that those costs push up auto insurance premiums for every driver in the state. They said the measure would put more of each recovery in the victim’s pocket and end self-dealing by lawyers. That is their case, stated fairly.
Why I still call it a liability shield
Abuse exists, and it should be stopped. Kickbacks and undisclosed side deals hurt clients. But the measure did not stop at abuse. It went after the tools every injured person needs: medical care, documentation and a lawyer willing to carry the cost of a hard case.
The civil justice system does two jobs. It pays people who were harmed. And it makes the company that caused the harm feel the cost. That second job is what makes safety a budget line instead of a press release. Lower the cost of harm, and you lower the pressure to prevent it.
Timing matters too. As autonomous vehicles spread, fault shifts from a careless driver to software and system design, and one design failure can hurt many people. A company expecting that exposure has every reason to limit injury claims now.
That is a rational business plan. It is bad public policy.
What’s changed since March 2026: SB 623
SB 623 replaced the ballot fight. It is much narrower than the initiative. Here is what it does, based on the enacted text:
- Who it covers. Civil claims against a rideshare company, its subsidiary or an app-based driver, arising from a crash on or after January 1, 2027. It does not cover every car accident in California.
- Medical bills from lien-based providers. Recovery for those bills is capped at the 70th percentile of billed charges in the FAIR Health database, or a comparable commercial database, for the same area. A lien-based provider is one whose payment depends on the outcome of the case.
- Sold liens. If a medical lien is sold, assigned or factored to a third party, the recovery is limited to what was actually paid for it. Those agreements must be disclosed within 30 days, and an undisclosed lien sale cannot be used against the defendant.
- Self-dealing. A plaintiff’s lawyer on contingency may not refer a client to a provider the lawyer owns, split fees with a provider, or take kickbacks or referral payments tied to lien-based treatment.
- Driver safety. Rideshare companies must run background checks before a driver goes live and every year after, with an expanded list of disqualifying offenses. The law also allows women riders and drivers to ask to be matched with women.
- No fee cap. SB 623 does not limit what an injured person’s lawyer may charge.
SB 623 is a compromise. It targets specific practices, like undisclosed lien sales and referral kickbacks, instead of shrinking every crash victim’s recovery through the constitution. That is a real difference. Whether the 70th percentile cap keeps lien-based care available for uninsured rideshare victims is something we will only learn once cases arising after January 1, 2027 are resolved.
What this means for you
- Know the date. For a rideshare crash before January 1, 2027, the prior rules on medical damages apply. For a crash on or after that date, SB 623 applies. For any other car crash, SB 623 does not change your medical damages.
- Get treated, and keep records. Use your health insurance if you have it. If you treat on a lien, ask the provider in writing whether the lien has been or will be sold.
- Get your fee agreement in writing and read it. Know what the fee is, what costs are deducted and when.
- Read before you sign a petition. The next version of this fight may show up with another consumer-friendly name. Read the official title and summary, not the slogan.
For more on how insurance works after an Uber or Lyft crash, read Uber and Lyft accidents in California: whose insurance pays? and Medical bills after an accident in California: what you can recover. You can also learn more about rideshare accident claims and car accident claims. Read the original column at the Daily Journal.
Frequently asked questions
Will Uber’s attorney fee measure be on the November 2026 ballot?
No. It qualified in June 2026 but was withdrawn by the June 25, 2026 deadline as part of the deal that produced SB 623. The Secretary of State’s certified list for the November 3, 2026 election does not include it.
Does SB 623 cap what my injury lawyer can charge?
No. SB 623 contains no cap on attorney fees. It limits certain medical damages, regulates medical lien sales and bars lawyer-provider kickbacks in rideshare crash cases.
Does SB 623 apply to every car accident in California?
No. It applies to claims against a rideshare company, its subsidiary or an app-based driver, for crashes on or after January 1, 2027.
What is a medical lien?
A medical lien is an agreement that lets you get treatment now and pay the provider later out of any settlement or judgment.