Consumer Watchdog Warns Uber’s Ballot Petition Could Undercut Californians’ Rights After Rideshare Accidents

A growing coalition of consumer advocates and legal professionals is warning California residents to take a closer look at a ballot petition Uber is circulating across the state. Although the initiative has been positioned by its backers as a “pro-consumer” reform, groups such as Consumer Watchdog and several legal commentators say the measure would limit injured Californians’ ability to recover full medical expenses and secure legal representation after a motor vehicle accident. Our own legal team at Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP even first rang the alarm about this ballot measure back in October (visit our blog to learn more).

Consumer Watchdog Points a Finger at Uber

In mid-December 2025, Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit focused on consumer rights, published a news release condemning Uber’s ballot petition as effectively stripping away fundamental rights for accident victims. (You can view the full article by clicking here.) The group’s president, Jamie Court, stated that voters need to understand what they are being asked to sign away: not only the right to full medical recovery, but also the right to choose an attorney on a contingency fee basis, a cornerstone of how personal injury clients access legal help.

Consumer Watchdog’s release also explained that Uber is paying $3 for each signature collected on the petition, an unusual tactic that has drawn criticism and raised questions about the integrity of the process. The official title and summary of the proposed measure, as prepared by the California Attorney General, frames the initiative as limiting attorney fees so that accident victims retain at least 75% of their settlement or judgment. However, the summary also reveals broader changes: it would restrict certain medical expense recoveries and prohibit specific financial arrangements between attorneys and medical providers.

According to Consumer Watchdog, these provisions work together to create significant hurdles for people injured in car crashes who may lack the ability to pay for costly medical care upfront or to retain qualified legal counsel. For many accident victims, especially those with modest claims or complex medical needs, contingency fee arrangements, which involve attorneys who are only paid if they secure compensation, are essential to gaining justice. Limiting such arrangements could mean fewer lawyers with the time and resources to take on cases that require extensive work for relatively low payouts.

Los Angeles Times Voices Similar Concerns

More recently, a Los Angeles Times business article also questioned the portrayal of the initiative as “pro-consumer,” suggesting that the narrative being put forward by Uber may be designed more to protect the company’s bottom line than to benefit accident victims. (You can read the full L.A. Times article by clicking here.) Critics in that report described the initiative as a tactic that could help Uber and similar companies limit liability rather than genuinely reform the system to the advantage of ordinary Californians.

Under the current civil justice system, contingency fee arrangements have long enabled people without significant financial resources to pursue claims for injuries and losses. Attorneys often front the cost of litigation (including filing fees, expert witnesses, court reporting, and other expenses) in the expectation that their fees will come from a portion of the recovery if the case succeeds. A hard cap on fees, especially one that includes both attorney time and expenses, could disincentivize lawyers from taking most auto accident cases, especially for smaller firms that have to save what time they have for the most dramatic cases that need the most attention. Consumer advocates argue this would make meaningful legal recourse less accessible for the very people the initiative claims to help.

Time Will Tell If the Ballot Measure Gains Favor

Consumer Watchdog’s statements underscore a broader concern about corporate influence in California’s ballot process. As signature gathering continues and the measure moves through the official process to qualify for the November 2026 ballot, Californians and legal observers will be watching closely. With multiple voices now questioning the true impact of this initiative on injured consumers, as well as Uber’s method of paying passersby for petition signatures, the debate over what constitutes “consumer protection” in this context is far from settled.