A new California ballot initiative is being marketed to voters as consumer protection. Its proponents call it the "Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act." The California Attorney General's office, after reviewing the actual text, gave it a different official title.
| Source | What it's called |
| Initiative proponents (campaign materials) | Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act |
| California Attorney General (official title) | Limits Automobile Accident Victims' Recovery of Medical Expenses and Fees Their Attorneys May Receive |
That gap between what supporters call the measure and what the state's chief legal officer determined it actually does is the entire story.
The initiative, formally tracked as 25-0022A1, is targeting the November 3, 2026, ballot. As of February 6, 2026, the campaign had collected 25 percent of the 874,641 voter signatures required to qualify. The measure is heavily backed by Uber, which has reportedly committed approximately $12 million to the campaign.
Rose Sanders Law Firm, a multi-state personal injury practice with offices across Texas and in California, is following this initiative closely. The reason is straightforward: a constitutional amendment that reshapes how injury victims access legal representation and medical care in the country's largest state will not stay confined to one state. What passes in California tends to set the template for what is proposed everywhere else.
Here is what the measure actually does, who is behind it, and what it could mean for anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Initiative 25-0022A1 is a proposed amendment to the California Constitution. The proponents named in the official filings are John Moffatt and Kurt R. Oneto.
A constitutional amendment is a significant legal instrument. Unlike ordinary legislation, which the legislature can revise or repeal, a constitutional amendment can only be undone by another vote of the people. This means that whatever the initiative does, on the day it passes, becomes part of California's foundational law.
The Attorney General's official summary describes the measure in three parts. It would limit the fees attorneys may receive in motor vehicle accident cases so victims retain at least 75 percent of their recovery. It would, for certain medical expenses, increase a victim's burden of proof and limit the amounts they may recover. And it would prohibit certain financial arrangements between attorneys and medical providers.
Each of those provisions sounds reasonable in isolation. Read together, and read against the actual mechanism the initiative uses, the picture changes.
The measure caps attorney compensation in motor vehicle accident contingency cases so that the client retains no less than 75 percent of any settlement or judgment.
The detail that gets lost in the headline is what falls inside that 25 percent. Up-front litigation costs — court filing fees, expert witness fees, deposition costs, evidence collection — are deducted from the total recovery before the percentage is calculated. In practice, this means the 25 percent must cover not only the attorney's fee but the full cost of prosecuting the case.
Contingency fees in California typically range between 33 and 40 percent precisely because they have to cover both the attorney's work and the financial risk of advancing all litigation costs in cases that may take years to resolve. Capping that figure at 25 percent does not just reduce attorney income. It changes the math on which cases are economically feasible to take at all.
For medical expenses already paid or covered by insurance, recovery would be limited to the amount actually paid. For medical expenses billed but not yet paid, recovery would be capped at the lower of:
| Benchmark | Cap |
| Applicable fee-for-service Medicare reimbursement rate | 125% |
| Applicable Medi-Cal reimbursement rate (if no Medicare rate exists) | 170% |
| Median rate paid by certain commercial insurers (if neither rate exists) | Median |
| Actual amount a private insurer would pay (if victim has private coverage) | Actual paid amount |
These benchmarks are significantly below what providers typically charge for treating accident victims. Government reimbursement rates exist to reflect what public programs negotiate, not what private medical care actually costs.
The initiative prohibits attorneys representing motor vehicle accident victims from referring clients to medical providers in which the attorney or the attorney's immediate family holds a financial interest. It also prohibits attorneys from soliciting or knowingly receiving any compensation, including rebates or free medical services, in exchange for referrals.
Most practicing personal injury attorneys are already bound by professional ethics rules that govern these relationships. The initiative would elevate violations from professional discipline to a misdemeanor criminal offense.
The measure increases the burden of proof a victim must meet to recover certain medical expenses, particularly those tied to medical liens. Under current California law, recoverable medical expenses must be shown to be reasonably necessary and appropriately billed. The initiative raises that standard for the specific category of medical expenses it targets.
The practical effect is that a victim with legitimate injuries may need to clear a higher evidentiary bar simply to be reimbursed for treatment they actually received.
Violations of both the fee cap and the referral prohibition would be classified as misdemeanors. Attorneys could also face State Bar discipline, and clients would be authorized to seek damages directly from the attorney for violations.
The measure also creates whistleblower protections. Employees who report prohibited financial agreements between attorneys and medical providers could not be retaliated against and could file complaints with the State Bar, the Labor Commissioner's Office, or in civil court.
Several aspects of the initiative receive less attention in campaign materials but matter substantially for how it would function in practice.
The 25 percent must cover both fees and case costs. Marketing language describes the cap as ensuring victims keep 75 percent of their recovery. What it does not emphasize is that the 25 percent on the other side has to cover everything: the attorney's fee, expert witnesses, court costs, deposition fees, accident reconstruction, medical record retrieval, and every other expense of building a case.
The measure applies to every auto accident case, not just rideshare cases. Despite being funded primarily by Uber, the initiative is not limited to rideshare-related accidents. It applies to every motor vehicle accident in California, regardless of whether a rideshare company is involved.
Taxpayers absorb costs that corporations and insurers would have paid. The Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance issued an official fiscal impact estimate, which projected the following:
In other words, the savings come from fewer cases being pursued, and the new costs are absorbed by California taxpayers.
A counter-initiative has already been filed. Initiative 25-0027A1, filed shortly after, proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting new state laws that interfere with a person's right to contract with an attorney of their choice. It explicitly contemplates conflicting with measures that would limit attorney contingency-fee contracts. The two could appear on the same ballot.
The campaign is funded primarily by Uber, which has reportedly committed approximately $12 million to qualifying and promoting the measure. The proponents named in the official filings, John Moffatt and Kurt R. Oneto, are the legal points of contact, but the financial engine behind the campaign is corporate.
Context matters here. In recent years, Uber successfully lobbied California lawmakers to reduce the minimum uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage required for transportation network company drivers. Senate Bill 371, signed in October 2025, set those minimums at $60,000 per injured person and $300,000 per accident, down from prior $1 million levels. That reduction means that when a rideshare driver causes a serious accident, the available insurance to compensate the victim is dramatically lower than it used to be.
Initiative 25-0022 follows that pattern. The first move reduced the insurance available to compensate victims. The second move would reduce the legal and medical infrastructure victims rely on to access whatever compensation remains.
There is also a recent precedent. In January 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously struck down a similar Uber-backed ballot initiative that would have capped attorney fees at 20 percent. The court found the measure misleading. Uber had reportedly invested approximately $5 million in the Nevada effort. California is the second attempt, with significantly more funding behind it.
Initiative 25-0022 raises practical concerns that go beyond the legal industry. They affect the people the measure claims to protect.
The contingency fee model exists for a specific reason: it allows people who cannot afford to pay an attorney by the hour to access legal representation after an injury. Attorneys take on the financial risk of the case, advance the costs, and are paid only if the client recovers. Capping fees at 25 percent — while requiring that cap to also cover all litigation expenses — changes the math on which cases are viable to pursue. Smaller cases, complex cases requiring extensive expert testimony, and cases against well-funded corporate defendants all become harder to take.
The medical expense limits create a parallel problem. Treating providers who accept patients on a lien basis — meaning they treat now and are paid from the eventual settlement — generally do so because the lien amount reflects the actual cost of care. Tying recovery to Medicare and Medi-Cal benchmarks, which are below market rates, may make it economically unworkable for providers to treat lien patients at all. The result is that injured people may struggle to find both an attorney willing to take their case and a doctor willing to treat them on the terms the case requires.
These are not predictions about specific outcomes. They are questions about how the legal and medical systems function together for people who have been injured through no fault of their own.
What happens with Initiative 25-0022 in California will not stay in California. State ballot measures that reshape liability rules and attorney-client relationships have historically been used as templates for similar efforts in other states. A successful constitutional amendment in California would give corporate-backed campaigns a proof of concept they could replicate.
That is part of why a multi-state firm like Rose Sanders Law Firm is paying attention to a California ballot measure. The legal infrastructure that allows everyday people to hold negligent parties accountable is the same in concept across state lines, even when it differs in detail. Changes to that infrastructure tend to travel.
The counter-initiative, 25-0027A1, suggests the conversation in California is far from settled. Whether either measure ultimately reaches voters, qualifies for the ballot, or passes will depend on signature collection, legal challenges, and the broader political environment over the next several months.
The current legal framework in California still applies. The contingency fee structure that has existed for over a century is still in place, and the medical expense rules that allow recovery for reasonably necessary treatment have not changed.
For anyone navigating a claim, the practical steps remain the same:
Rose Sanders Law Firm represents accident victims across Texas and California and continues to monitor Initiative 25-0022 and related developments. If you have questions about how a current or potential claim could be affected by changes to California law, a consultation with a personal injury attorney familiar with both the existing framework and the proposed changes is the appropriate first step.
