Jamie Court, the organization’s president, said the measure would quietly ask voters to sign away two core legal protections: the right to full medical recovery after an accident and the right to hire an attorney on a contingency-fee basis.
“Voters need to read what they’re signing,” Mr. Court said in an interview. “What they are being asked to give up is their right to full medical recovery in accidents and the right to contract with an attorney of their choice.”
Uber has hired signature gatherers and is paying roughly three dollars per signature, according to Consumer Watchdog. The proposed initiative, which would amend the California Constitution, is described in the Attorney General’s official title and summary as limiting automobile accident victims’ recovery of medical expenses and capping the fees their attorneys may receive.
Under the measure, accident victims would be required to retain at least 75 percent of any monetary recovery after costs, effectively limiting the contingency fees available to plaintiffs’ attorneys, while placing no comparable restrictions on attorneys representing defendants. The initiative would also restrict the types and amounts of medical expenses victims could recover, tie compensation to Medicare or Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, and prohibit certain financial arrangements between lawyers and medical providers.
Mr. Court said those provisions, taken together, would make it far more difficult for injured people — particularly those with modest claims or complex cases — to find legal representation at all.
“Uber should be ashamed of itself for circulating a ballot measure that takes away injured consumers’ right to recovery and representation during the giving season,” he said. “Scrooge at least felt shame. Uber’s holiday gift is a lump of coal in the form of a ballot petition that strips injured people of their rights.”
Consumer Watchdog has formally raised its concerns with Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the initiative is framed as cost-saving reform while in practice erecting “severe new barriers” to justice. By raising the evidentiary standard for proving medical liens to “clear and convincing,” the group says, the measure would disadvantage people who cannot afford to pay for care upfront or who lack insurance coverage.
“This isn’t reform,” Mr. Court said. “It’s suppression of valid claims.”
He added that limiting recoverable medical expenses to insurer payments or government reimbursement rates ignores the reality that many injured people remain responsible for higher costs through liens or uncovered care. As a result, he said, the financial burden would be shifted away from corporations and insurers and onto public programs like Medi-Cal — and ultimately taxpayers.
“Uber’s coal-black capitalism is using its vast money and power to trick people out of their rights when they get into an accident,” Mr. Court said. “The real-world effect is fewer lawyers willing to take these cases, fewer victims able to recover, and more costs dumped onto public systems.”
Legal scholars have echoed those concerns in recent commentary, warning that the initiative could lock lower-income plaintiffs out of the courthouse altogether. Mr. Court said those warnings underscore what he sees as the initiative’s true purpose.
“This is about changing the rules so fewer people can hold powerful companies accountable,” he said. “And they’re doing it one signature at a time.”