By Malcom Maclachlan, DAILY JOURNAL
CAOC-backed committees report massive fundraising totals as title and summary approvals allow competing ballot measures to move toward signature gathering.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys and rideshare companies are barreling toward a titanic ballot initiative battle.
As the new year arrived, campaign committees affiliated with Uber Technologies Inc. and the Consumer Attorneys of California had already banked more than $50 million between them, with far more likely on the way. On Friday, Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office published title and summary documents for three initiatives backed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, clearing them for signature gathering.
“In my 36 years in California politics, I have never seen the trial bar mobilize this fast or with this degree of resolve,” said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, who described himself as an ‘ally’” of the plaintiffs’ attorneys but is not directly involved in CAOC’s efforts. “This will be an epic battle that defines the future of Uber and the future of the civil justice system.”
In October, attorneys working for Uber submitted paperwork for the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self Dealing Act. The proposed California ballot initiative, backed by Uber, would overhaul personal injury litigation involving auto accidents. The measure would limit contingency fees, so injured victims retain most of any settlement or court award, and limit recoverable medical damages by tying them to standardized reimbursement rates.
The proposed language submitted by attorneys with Nielsen Merksamer LLP in Sacramento said the initiative would help protect consumers from lawyers who “put their own profits ahead of the people they are supposed to represent,” including “so-called ‘billboard attorneys’ and other personal injury lawyers [who] spend millions of dollars targeting low-income automobile accident victims, promoting huge payouts that rarely happen.” Uber subsequently deposited $12 million into a campaign account.
“Uber is committed to ensuring California voters have the facts,” the company said in a statement emailed by spokesman Zahid Arab. “The Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act protects all drivers and consumers from a rigged system. A recent report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows that lawsuit abuse contributes to a hidden “tort cost” of $5,400 per household per year in higher insurance and everyday costs.”
Speaking to The Daily Journal in November, just before becoming CAOC’s new president, Douglas S. Saeltzer called himself a “wartime president.” The shareholder with Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger in San Francisco added that the initiative would “slam the door” on accident victims seeking to recover damages and warned Uber would spend millions to pass it.
But plaintiffs’ attorney Nicholas C. Rowley said that in the weeks since, the profession has mobilized and unified.
“Sometimes what appears to be a curse can end up being a blessing,” he said when reached Monday.
Available campaign finance records show that an initiative committee organized by CAOC members raised about $38 million by the end of 2025. Rowley said the real figure is more than $57. 5 million, and that additional money will appear in coming weeks as Weber’s office publishes more fundraising reports.
Campaign finance records show the Consumer Attorneys of California Initiative Defense Political Action Committee has taken in $35.5 million. Last month, it transferred $30 million of that money into another committee, the Alliance Against Corporate Abuse, which has also raised nearly $3 million from other donors. Firms and individuals that have given at least $1 million include Rowley, Walkup, Singleton & Schreiber LLP, and Sweet James LLP.
“We’re going to raise at least $100 million more, maybe $150 million more if we keep going at this pace,” Rowley said. “Uber can spend a billion dollars, and it’s not going to matter.”
Rowley and Court both pointed to the title and summary documents written by Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office for each initiative. In each case, they said, the language turned out well for plaintiffs’ attorneys and poorly for Uber.
“Their title and summary couldn’t be any worse for them,” Rowley said, adding, “That’s the way that more than half of Californians vote.”
The title of Uber’s initiative, published last month, warns that it “limits automobile accident victims’ recovery of medical expenses.” The summary adds that it would “increase victims’ burden of proof” and reduce the number of lawsuits filed by accident victims.
By contrast, the first of the three initiatives filed by plaintiffs’ attorneys would “prohibit new state laws that interfere with the right to contract with an attorney. “The second would “expand rideshare companies’ liability for passenger injuries.” The third would “impose duties” on rideshare companies related to sexual misconduct by drivers. Rowley said he has seen internal polling on the initiatives that looks “really good.”
Court pointed to a similar battle 38 years ago. That year, insurers backed two initiatives that would have limited lawsuits, capped damages, and restricted attorney fees in personal injury cases. Instead, voters passed Proposition 103, which rolled back auto insurance rates and imposed new requirements for state approval of insurance increases.
“Judging by the ballot labels and the polling, it could be a replay of 1988,” Court said. “Consumers will have gained new protections to protect then1selves against Uber’s lax oversight over its drivers’ sexual offenses and a constitutional right to contract with an attorney, and Uber will have learned a lesson about using its wealth to pick on the little guys.”