Comments
ACCORDING TO LIZ - Outside grocery stores people in need of a few bucks are begging voters to sign a petition to place a measure on the next ballot for $3 a signature. A petition circulated by an entity calling itself “A More Affordable California” claim the measure will protect consumers.
Don’t sign.
A More Affordable California receives its funding from Uber Technologies, Inc. Initiative 25-0022A1, the so-called Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act is simply an end play by Uber to preserve its profits by significantly reducing its exposure when their autonomous vehicles injure Californians by deliberately diverting attention away from their own safety obligations and putting the onus on so-called “billboard attorneys” and shyster personal injury lawyers.
While some very visible members of the latter group deserve the bad rap, that has nothing to do with the rights of victims to collect damages from a corporation whose shoddy safety decisions may injure them, shattering their lives.
On top of deceitful petition language marketing the outcome as a reform that would benefit accident victims, if this proposition makes it to the ballot, all Californians will be subjected to an avalanche of misleading advertising on radio, television, and billboards as well as an over-the-top social media campaign.
A campaign designed specifically to scare the less knowledgeable into supporting a proposal that is not in their best interest.
Instead, it hands more power to insurance companies and eviscerates accident victims’ rights to recover medical costs leaving them with huge liens to cover their costs incurred while a cost cutting company that refuses to adequately invest in the necessary technology to make its vehicles safer banks more money.
It sharply restricts what some lawyers, not their own, can charge, essentially removing a victim’s right to engage a contingency-fee attorney – the only way most Californians can take on the expense of challenging deep-pocket companies.
It gives more tools for delay to Uber and their ilk’s insurers, further exacerbating costs to the victim as interest and penalties on yet-to-be-paid medical and related bills mount.
It also restricts referrals of victims by their more knowledgeable lawyers to qualified medical providers.
When a major corporation promotes a ballot measure claiming to protect consumers, it’s a huge red flag that deserves much closer scrutiny by the voter, all the while that Uber’s public relations machinery pours out happy-happy smoke.
This proposed initiative, despite its claims to the contrary, would create serious barriers for people injured by their autonomous vehicles, especially in Los Angeles-adjacent communities where their four-wheeled wonders are likely to travel – and create havoc – in upcoming years. Where more people are dependent on lawyers working on contingency to preserve their rights.
Although some of the assertions in the Consumer Watchdog’s Consumer Alert video [[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P_uZ3Eewo4]]] may be over the top, it spells out Uber’s desire to bring back potentially deadly self-driving robotaxis in 2026, and the company’s prospective demand of legal immunity for any injuries they cause.
The summary by the office of Attorney General of California states that Initiative 25-0022A1, which it terms a constitutional amendment, would limit “automobile accident victims’ recovery of medical expenses and fees their attorneys may receive” and goes on to say:
“Automobile accident victims often hire an attorney on a contingency basis, meaning the attorney receives an agreed-upon percentage of the victim’s monetary recovery if the victim wins. This measure would:
* limit the fees such attorneys may receive so victims retain at least 75% of their monetary recovery, but does not restrict fee arrangements for defendants’ attorneys;
* for certain medical expenses, increase victims’ burden of proof and limit the amounts they may recover; and
* prohibit certain financial arrangements between attorneys and medical providers.”
In the summary of fiscal impact on state and local governments attached, the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance states that there likely would be:
“net savings to the state trial courts ranging from the millions of dollars to the tens of millions of dollars annually… [depending] on the overall reduction in motor vehicle accident cases being filed as well as the degree to which remaining cases would take longer to resolve.
“Increased state Medi-Cal costs that could range from the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually due to various factors, including a reduction in compensation for some motor vehicle accidents used to offset Medi-Cal costs.”
And, by capping attorney fees based on a rigid definition of “total amount recovered” excluding medical liens, many victims will not meet the threshold required to legally hire counsel. As a result, insurance companies gain overwhelming leverage while victims are left alone to negotiate complex claims.
Even those who call foul on Consumer Watchdog, acknowledge that Uber’s ploy would “increase victims’ burden of proof and limit the amounts they may recover” for certain medical expenses, and “prohibit certain financial arrangements between attorneys and medical providers.”
But claiming the reduction of plaintiff attorney fees from the typical 30-33% to 25% of the financial recovery would benefit victims over their attorney is a fallacy.
Ya gets whatcha pays for…
And the best personal injury attorneys, those who get the most for their clients, can often command 40%. Often legitimately so, because their clients face staggering odds against the hordes of powerful corporate lawyers.
Don’t sign.
Much as many Californians may dislike the personal injury industry, it serves an important and egalitarian purpose.
It is patently unfair to take away one of the few remaining options for the little guy to take on corporate behemoths and their endless teams of legal beagles and paid expert witnesses. Especially in deserving cases, where there are modest damages or complex liability and the incentive for personal injury attorneys to take these on drops to nil.
Victims would lose meaningful access to qualified attorneys, making it difficult to challenge patently unfair or lowball settlement offers.
Would that 25% really be sufficient to cover the hours and hours lawyers, paralegals, and others put in to protect the interests of a victim against the power of a sophisticated bulldozer of a corporate behemoth?
Meanwhile the corporation would still have full access to its highly trained, highly compensated and highly motivated legal teams without fee restrictions.
There are better ways to curb the excesses of shysters in that sector of the practice of law.
And if Uber wants to take out the “billboard attorneys,” how about also removing those in bespoke suits who are trained to manipulate the law against the people California’s laws were designed to protect? And the judges and law enforcement personnel in the corridors of power who have sweetheart arrangements with those smooth actors that offensively tilt outcomes in favor of deep-pocketed companies?
Los Angeles and other urban areas, their exurbs, and other markets Uber covets are likely to face the impact initially.
But this gutting of contingency legal representation to stand up to well-heeled insurers could easily apply to anybody anywhere in California.
The initiative rewrites established rules for recovering medical expenses and ties claims to percentages of Medicare or Medi-Cal rates even for victims who do not use those programs. It raises the burden of proof to “clear and convincing evidence” for some types of unpaid medical bills, making it harder for victims to obtain reimbursement of certain costs of care.
Pass this along to other Californians who might be urged to sign the ballot petition based on its inflammatory slant of the issue and stop Uber’s selfish proposal before it gains traction.
Even if Uber’s next-gen autonomous cars do not produce the horrific consequences portrayed in the Consumer Watchdog video, who knows how they willperform?
The company is rushing to get back in the robotaxi business, but it clearly hasn’t invested in the years of testing necessary to make sure its cars are safe. Notorious for its cost cutting, Uber will likely not invest in the expensive technology necessary to make its self-driving cars safer.
This measure benefits insurance companies and corporate defendants, not victims, saving millions for the insurers and their clients while the victims are denied adequate compensation.
Keep in mind that this planned gutting of the rights of the disenfranchised to challenge the rich and powerful does not stop with Uber. The language would apply to almost all accidents, including those pitting pedestrians and personal vehicles against other cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, delivery vehicles, and commercial fleets.
And then there are all the other shadowy entities waiting in the wings, corporate predators eager to expand on, and exploit the ramifications of, and leverage every loophole opened in the fine print.
Is this fair? Hell, no!
Help stop this before it gains any more traction by refusing to sign the Uber petition and educating everyone you know to join in opposing this corporate steal.
Urge them to read the Attorney General’s non-partisan ballot label in person: and scroll down to click 25-0022A1 on the left.
(Liz Amsden is a former Angeleno now living in Vermont and a regular CityWatch contributor. She writes on issues she’s passionate about, including social justice, government accountability, and community empowerment. Liz brings a sharp, activist voice to her commentary and continues to engage with Los Angeles civic affairs from afar. She can be reached at [email protected].)
