A battle over California rideshare’s future may await the ballot box | Opinion
California voters should brace themselves for an uber of a fight over the future of the state’s rideshare industry, pitting two cherished state values against one another: Holding companies accountable versus making their services as affordable as possible.
Uber rideshare company and the state’s consumer attorneys are circulating competing initiatives that, if they qualify for the November ballot, propose to place the industry on very different legal and regulatory footings.
The attorneys want to increase regulation and legal exposure of the rideshare companies, overseeing them the same way as traditional taxi companies.
Meanwhile, the rideshare industry wants to further regulate the legal industry, limiting what percent attorneys get paid from legal settlements involving vehicle accidents.
If the attorneys get their way, expanding the legal liability of the rideshare companies undoubtedly would come at a cost, which gets at least partially passed onto you. On the other hand, if the rideshare industry and its drivers manage to lower their legal bills, how much of that savings would actually get passed onto you as opposed to shareholders?
With millions already being spent to qualify these initiatives, the looming campaigns could dwarf what some candidates may spend for governor. Prepare to tune in or tune out.
How the fight emerged
The rideshare industry spent more than $200 million just six years ago to convince California voters that their drivers were not employees but independent contractors. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22 in 2024, which overturned legislation designating these “gig economy” drivers as employees, making it the law of the land.
But Democrats in the California Legislature did not give up in their quest to potentially unionize these drivers. So last year, the Democrats and the rideshare industry struck a deal.
Uber agreed to legislation that gave these independent contractors a path to unionizing if they so choose. The rideshare companies, meanwhile, got legislation allowing them to limit how much insurance coverage is necessary for accidents when another driver is at fault, going from $1 million per incident down to $300,000.
But this deal hasn’t proven to be so gig. Given the lack of any major unionizing efforts inside the rideshare industry, it looks like the Democrats got basically nothing. And Uber wasn’t satisfied with some reductions in insurance costs.
Uber: Aiming for the ‘billboard attorneys’
Within months of that legislative dud of a deal in Sacramento, Uber was circulating for signatures for the self-proclaimed “Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act.” In its crosshairs are the large “billboard attorney” companies that look for accident victims and are willing to represent them for a slice of the settlement.
Currently, there is no universal cap on what percentage any firm can collect as part of a settlement. The Uber initiative would limit the attorneys’ share to 25% for all cases, not just those involving rideshare companies. It would also seek to reduce claims for “excessive and unnecessary medical care.”
Uber portrays this as putting more of the settlement award into the pockets of the victim. Limiting the revenue of any industry, however, limits that industry. This happens to be a litigation industry, and the question is how big do we want it to be.
Consumer attorneys: Championing the ‘common carrier’
Rideshare companies to date have avoided the same regulatory framework governing bus lines and taxi companies. Companies within these industries are “common carriers” and they are squarely liable for all the actions of their workers.
In what is self-proclaimed as the “Rideshare Company Public Utility Act,” the initiative pushed by attorneys seeks to designate all rideshare companies as common carriers and to expand their legal liabilities, with proposals such as this: “A transportation network company shall be legally responsible for any and all damages to a person caused by an app-based driver’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct regardless of whether the app-based driver is categorized as an independent contractor.”
Consumer attorneys and their backers portray this as bringing accountability to an industry that hides from it. Maybe so. But the underlying question is whether we are willing to pay more for rideshare as an inevitable price for greater legal and regulatory exposure.
Why there may be only one winner
Both initiatives have language that basically says the same thing: If both measures happen to make it onto the ballot, and if voters approve both, the one with the most votes should win. And if that one ultimately gets thrown out in court, then the other one wins.
Count me as equally open-minded and skeptical of both measures, and being particularly dubious that modern-day initiative campaigns will prove remotely enlightening.
We’re on a path with these initiatives to making some decisions with the most imperfect of information. In other words, buckle up.
A previous version did not specify that the legislation only reduced required insurance liability coverage in accidents where another driver was at fault.
This story was originally published January 28, 2026 at 5:00 AM with the headline "A battle over California rideshare’s future may await the ballot box | Opinion."