Two competing ballot measures concerning Uber's legal liability have qualified for the California ballot. One measure, backed by Uber, aims to cap attorney fees and limit damages. The other, supported by trial lawyers, seeks to hold Uber accountable for issues including sexual assault claims.
The qualification of these competing ballot measures sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political battle in California over corporate liability, potentially impacting consumer rights, the gig economy, and the future of autonomous vehicle deployment.
Two opposing ballot measures concerning Uber's legal liability have officially qualified for the California ballot, following significant advertising campaigns from both sides. Uber's measure seeks to cap attorney fees at 25% and limit damages, which the company argues will address issues with "billboard lawyers" and "phantom" damages. Conversely, a coalition led by Consumer Attorneys, including consumer advocates and medical professionals, argues Uber's proposal is self-serving and would hinder victims' ability to sue the ride-hailing company, particularly as it moves towards self-driving cars.
The trial lawyers' group also contends that their initiative would hold Uber accountable for persistent sexual harassment and assault concerns, citing a New York Times investigation. This measure aims to ensure Uber remains liable for such issues. Both Uber and Consumer Attorneys have until June 25 to potentially reach an agreement and withdraw their measures, possibly in favor of a legislative compromise. However, past disputes, including legislation that lowered insurance mandates for ride-sharing companies, suggest a deal could be difficult to broker.
Beyond California, Uber is pursuing similar liability-limiting proposals in other states. Additionally, a recent amendment inserted by Representative Vince Fong into a major transportation bill has drawn criticism from consumer advocates, who claim it would significantly reduce the company's legal responsibility in car collisions.