Uber is once again trying to change California law. This time the change could make it much harder for injured victims to recover fair compensation after a serious accident.
In October 2025, Uber filed a California ballot initiative for the November 2026 election titled the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act. Uber presents the measure as a consumer protection reform that would ensure accident victims keep at least seventy-five percent of their recovery.
Critics see it very differently. They argue the initiative would make it harder for injured people to obtain legal representation and medical care while reducing the accountability of large corporations when their conduct causes harm.
If enacted, the proposal would significantly change how injury cases are brought and litigated in California.
Why Critics Say the Measure Does Not Actually Help Consumers
Uber promotes the initiative as a reform designed to ensure that accident victims keep more of their recovery. Critics argue that the proposal focuses on limiting attorney compensation rather than addressing the factors that most affect what injured people ultimately receive.
In serious injury cases, the largest reductions in a victim’s recovery often come from medical bills, insurance reimbursement claims, and disputes over the value of the injuries themselves. Opponents of the initiative contend that the proposal does little to address those issues. Instead, they argue the measure targets the legal framework surrounding injury cases while leaving the underlying challenges faced by accident victims largely unchanged.
How Serious Injury Cases Are Actually Litigated
Serious accident cases are rarely simple. Establishing liability and proving the full extent of a victim’s injuries often requires extensive investigation, expert testimony, and significant financial investment.
Attorneys handling these cases frequently advance the costs necessary to pursue the claim. That may include medical experts, accident reconstruction, depositions, and other litigation expenses. Most of these cases are handled on a contingency basis, meaning the attorney is paid only if the case succeeds.
That system allows injured people who cannot afford hourly legal fees to pursue claims against insurance companies or large corporate defendants. Critics of the initiative argue that changing the economics of these cases could make some complex claims harder to bring, particularly when substantial resources are required to prove fault or damages.
The Bottom Line for California Voters
Ballot initiatives sponsored by large corporations often come with polished messaging and promises of reform. Voters should look closely at who actually benefits from the legal changes being proposed.
When considering this measure, ask a simple question. Is Uber promoting this initiative to increase the compensation available to injured passengers, or to reduce how much Uber will have to pay when those passengers are seriously harmed?
Large corporations rarely spend millions of dollars promoting laws that increase their liability. More often, those efforts are aimed at reducing it.
California’s civil justice system exists for an important reason. It provides a way for people who have been harmed by negligence to seek accountability and recover the compensation necessary to rebuild their lives. Any proposal that alters those protections deserves careful scrutiny.
A Question for Voters
Consider what happens after a serious crash. Someone suffers life-changing injuries. Medical bills start to pile up. Income disappears. The person responsible for the harm has an insurance company and a team of lawyers working to minimize the claim.
The last thing an injured person should have to worry about is whether they can find a lawyer willing to take the case or obtain the medical care needed to prove their injuries.
Laws that make it harder for injured people to secure representation or treatment do not level the playing field. They tilt it further in favor of large corporations and insurance companies.
As this initiative moves forward, voters should look past the marketing and consider the real world impact on injured Californians and their families.
Why Access to the Civil Justice System Matters
For many injured Californians, the civil justice system is the only tool available to hold negligent actors accountable and obtain the financial support needed to recover from catastrophic injuries.
Medical treatment, rehabilitation, and lost income can create overwhelming financial pressure after a serious accident. Laws that make it harder for injured people to obtain legal representation do not simply affect lawsuits. They affect whether ordinary people have a meaningful opportunity to seek justice.
At Abramson Smith Waldsmith LLP, we believe California laws should protect injured victims, not make it harder for them to hold wrongdoers accountable.