If you are injured in a California car crash in 2027 or beyond, the rules that decide how much of your medical bills you can recover, how your attorney gets paid, and even which doctors will agree to treat you could look very different from the rules that exist today. That is because Uber is bankrolling a statewide ballot initiative that would rewrite the California Constitution itself to cap contingency fees and sharply limit medical damages in every vehicle crash case in the state, not just rideshare cases.
The measure is called the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act. The name sounds like a consumer protection bill. The fine print tells a very different story. As of today, June 8, 2026, signature gatherers are racing against the clock to collect more than 874,000 valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the November 2026 ballot. Whether it makes the ballot or not, every Californian who drives should understand what is being proposed and how it would change the practical reality of recovering from a crash.
What the Initiative Actually Does
The Uber-backed measure has three core pieces, and each one would reshape how auto injury cases work in California.
First, it would amend the California Constitution to guarantee that crash victims receive at least 75 percent of any settlement or judgment in a vehicle case. On its face, that sounds like a win for injured people. In practice, it operates as a hard cap on attorney contingency fees at 25 percent, regardless of how complex the case is, how long it takes, or how aggressively the defense fights.
Second, the initiative would limit how past and future medical expenses are calculated. Medical damages, including care provided on a lien, would generally be capped at 125 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate or 170 percent of the Medi-Cal rate. That is a dramatic cut from what hospitals, surgeons, imaging centers, and physical therapists actually charge in the private market.
Third, the measure would ban law firms from referring clients to any health care provider in which the firm or an immediate family member has a financial interest. Violations could trigger State Bar discipline. The stated goal is to stop self-dealing referral arrangements. The likely effect is a chilling impact on a much broader range of legitimate medical-legal relationships that injured people rely on every day.
Why a 25 Percent Fee Cap Is Not the Win It Sounds Like
A contingency fee is the only way most injured people can afford to take on an insurance company. We front the costs of investigation, accident reconstruction, medical experts, depositions, and trial preparation. If we lose, the client owes us nothing. If we win, we are paid a percentage of the recovery.
That model works because the fee reflects the real risk of taking a case. A clear rear-end crash with admitted liability and a cooperative insurer is one kind of case. A disputed-liability multi-vehicle collision with a traumatic brain injury, a defense team of three law firms, and two years of litigation is something else entirely. A flat 25 percent cap treats them the same.
Critics across the legal community have pointed out the practical consequence. When fees are capped below what the work actually costs to perform, lawyers stop taking the harder cases. Moderate and serious injury claims with disputed liability, contested causation, or complex medical histories are exactly the cases that would become economically impossible to handle. The clients who would lose access first are the ones with the most at stake: people with spinal injuries, brain injuries, and permanent disabilities whose cases require the most expert work.
In other words, the measure is marketed as keeping more money in the hands of victims, but it does so by making sure many of those victims never find a lawyer willing to fight for them in the first place.
The Medical Damages Cap Could Be Even More Damaging
The proposed cap on medical expenses is, in our view, the most significant part of the initiative for everyday Californians. Tying recoverable medical damages to 125 percent of Medicare or 170 percent of Medi-Cal rates would slash the value of nearly every auto injury claim in the state.
Medicare and Medi-Cal rates are reimbursement schedules designed for government payors with enormous negotiating leverage. They do not reflect what private hospitals charge, what surgeons bill, or what an MRI actually costs at a community imaging center. A lumbar fusion that bills at 150,000 dollars in the private market might reimburse at a fraction of that under Medicare. Under the proposed measure, the recoverable “medical damages” in the crash case would be tethered to that lower number, even if the client’s actual bills, liens, and future care needs are far higher.
John Reardon spent 20 years as a chiropractor before becoming a lawyer, and that clinical background shapes how we think about this. A real recovery from a serious crash often involves emergency care, diagnostic imaging, orthopedic or neurosurgical consults, pain management, physical therapy, and sometimes years of follow-up. The bills add up to what they add up to. Capping the recoverable amount at a government reimbursement multiple does not change the reality of what the injured person owes or needs. It just shifts the loss onto the patient.
There is also a downstream problem. Many California physicians treat crash victims on a lien, meaning they wait to be paid out of the eventual settlement. They do this because the rates support the risk of waiting and the possibility of nonpayment. If the recoverable value of that care is slashed by statute, providers will stop accepting lien patients. Injured people without health insurance, or with high-deductible plans, will face real gaps in care while their cases are pending.
The Referral Ban and What It Means for Treatment
The third piece of the initiative bans law firms from referring clients to health care providers in which the firm or its immediate family has a financial interest, with State Bar discipline for violations. We agree that genuine self-dealing referral arrangements deserve scrutiny. The State Bar already has rules addressing conflicts of interest and improper referral relationships.
The concern is the breadth and the chilling effect. Personal injury lawyers and treating physicians often work together because they have to. A client comes in with neck pain and no health insurance. The lawyer knows which orthopedists in the area will see lien patients, document injuries thoroughly, and stand behind their findings in deposition. That is not self-dealing. That is competent representation.
A vaguely worded constitutional ban, enforced through State Bar discipline, is going to make a lot of lawyers think twice before pointing a client toward any specific provider, even when the referral is clearly in the client’s best interest. The likely result is more confusion, more delay in getting treatment, and worse documentation of injuries when the case is later evaluated by an insurer or a jury.
How This Fits With California’s Existing Rules
California already has a detailed legal framework for auto injury cases. Howell v. Hamilton Meats and the line of cases that followed it govern what medical expenses are recoverable, generally limiting recovery for past medical expenses to amounts actually paid or that remain owing. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. Proposition 213 bars uninsured drivers from recovering noneconomic damages in most situations. Comparative fault under Civil Code section 1714 reduces recovery by the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility. The statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 gives most injury victims two years to file.
These rules already balance the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and the public. Adding a constitutional cap on fees and a government-rate ceiling on medical damages would not refine that balance. It would tilt it sharply toward insurance carriers and corporate defendants, including the rideshare companies funding the initiative.
That is why a coalition of legal groups is advancing a competing constitutional measure that would protect a person’s right to hire the lawyer of their choice. That competing initiative is drafted to override the Uber measure if both pass. California voters could be looking at dueling constitutional amendments on the same ballot, and the outcome will shape auto injury law in this state for a generation.
What This Means If You Are Hurt in a Crash Right Now
For anyone injured in a California crash today, nothing has changed yet. The current rules still apply. You still have two years to file a claim. Your medical bills are still evaluated under existing case law. Your attorney fee is still set by your retainer agreement, not by a constitutional cap.
But the landscape could shift quickly. If the Uber initiative qualifies for the November 2026 ballot and passes, the new rules would apply to cases going forward. That makes the next several months an important window for anyone with a pending or unfiled claim to understand their options and get experienced counsel involved early.
A few practical points worth keeping in mind:
- Document your injuries thoroughly from day one. Get medical care, follow through with treatment, and keep records of every bill and every visit.
- Be cautious about quick settlement offers. Insurers watching the political landscape may push harder for fast, cheap resolutions before any potential rule changes take effect.
- Get a lawyer who understands both the medicine and the law. The way medical damages are documented and presented matters more than ever when the rules around them are in flux.
We Are Watching This Closely, and We Are Here to Help
The proposed initiative is one of the most significant attempted changes to California injury law in decades. Whether it qualifies for the ballot, whether voters approve it, and how the competing measure performs will all matter to anyone hurt on a California road. We will keep tracking the developments and updating clients as the situation evolves.
If you have been injured in a car, truck, motorcycle, or rideshare crash anywhere in California, the rules that apply to your case today are the ones that matter for your recovery. We would rather you understand your rights now, while the existing framework still protects you, than find out later that you waited too long.
Call Reardon Injury Law at (657) 522-7122 for a free consultation. We will review your situation, explain how current California law applies, and tell you honestly what we think your case is worth. You owe us nothing unless we win.