Uber-Backed Initiative Hurts Injured Californians and Crash Victims
Uber-Backed Initiative Is Designed to Harm Injured Californians
The California Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative (2026), filed as Initiative 25-0022, was submitted by attorney Kurt R. Oneto of Nielsen Merksamer, the same political law firm that represented Uber and other gig companies during the Proposition 22 battle. The so-called “Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act” is wildly misnamed. This Uber-backed initiative is part of a long-term strategy to cut corporate costs by limiting the rights of injured people.
Uber's Track Record Makes Its Motivation Clear
Uber is spending millions promoting this measure as a reform that “helps victims.” But Californians should ask the obvious question: Why would Uber suddenly spend millions to help injured people? The short answer is simple: They wouldn’t. They aren’t.
Uber has spent years aggressively lobbying to reduce its financial obligations whenever someone is injured, and that is what they are doing now.
- Proposition 22, where Uber spent more than $200 million to avoid classifying drivers as employees, reducing its obligations to the people who generate its revenue.
- Support for SB 371, which slashed uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for rideshare passengers from $1 million down to roughly $60,000 per injured person, a devastating reduction for seriously injured riders.
- Efforts to lower liability limits during “Period 1” (app on, no passenger), reducing protection for both Uber drivers and anyone they collide with.
- Aggressive claims handling, where Uber’s insurers routinely deny or minimize claims unless litigation pries accountability out of them.
Nothing in Uber’s recent history suggests a sudden interest in generosity toward victims. What the company invests in heavily are initiatives that reduce what it must pay when people are hurt.
A Corporate Liability Shield Disguised as Consumer Protection
Uber’s campaign presents the initiative as if it were written to protect people injured in motor vehicle collisions. In reality, it applies far beyond Uber rides. The measure would affect every auto crash in California, pedestrians, cyclists, rideshare passengers, truck drivers, and anyone hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist.
At its core, the initiative makes it dramatically harder and in some cases impossible, for injured people to get medical care, secure legal representation, or hold corporations accountable. Every substantive provision shifts power away from victims and toward billion-dollar companies with sophisticated insurance and defense teams, which will not have caps on what they can spend to fight your claims.
What Uber Says vs. What the Initiative Actually Does
Uber advertises the initiative as one that caps attorney fees, standardizes medical billing, and adds “transparency.” It requires that 75 percent of any settlement or verdict is paid to the plaintiff. These writers know that it sounds appealing, but 75 percent of 0 is 0.
In many cases, 25 percent doesn’t even cover litigation costs, meaning the attorney would not be compensated for months or years of work. If there is no viable way to be reimbursed, no firm can afford to cover these costs. If attorneys cannot afford to take cases, victims lose access to legal representation.
The combined effect is sweeping: fewer attorneys able to take cases, fewer doctors willing to treat injured people and dramatically reduced access to justice for victims of all types of collisions.
The Initiative Relies on Your Dislike of Attorneys
Uber is counting on the public’s disdain for attorneys. The initiative is wrapped in anti-lawyer language because the campaign depends on voters thinking, “Why should I care if lawyers get less?” This isn’t about an attorney getting less; it is about not having access to an attorney at all!
Join Dolan Law and Consumer Advocates Across California
This initiative is not reform. It is a corporate strategy to reduce accountability and strip rights from injured Californians. Broad opposition is already forming across the state, including:
- Dolan Law Firm
- Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC)
- Consumer Federation of California
- California Labor Federation
- California Applicants’ Attorneys Association
- California Nurses Association
- California Medical Association
- Patient, disability and consumer-safety coalitions statewide
Stay informed and support the organizations fighting this measure. We must stop a corporation from rewriting the civil justice system for its own benefit.