Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 623 to curb medical bill “lien” profits tied to car-crash lawsuits involving ride-share companies, ending a looming November ballot clash between Uber and California’s trial attorneys. The truce, however, doesn’t stop the separate l
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 623 on Thursday, choosing compromise over an all-out November ballot war between Uber and California’s trial attorneys—yet the pressure campaign behind the measure is still playing out in court.
The law targets a lucrative system in which personal injury lawyers refer injured clients to doctors who perform procedures and get paid from lawsuit settlements through “lien” arrangements. rather than through insurance. The core dispute. laid out in the negotiations and the dueling campaigns. centers on whether that structure rewards doctors and attorneys to inflate medical bills so settlements grow larger.
Uber argued the incentives can drive collusion—doctors and lawyers working together to dramatically raise charges—so the payout becomes bigger for the litigation team. The new law responds directly. SB 623 caps how much these doctors can charge when the patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company and is aimed particularly at cases where ride-share companies face frequent litigation.
It also requires Uber to ramp up background checks for its drivers, tightening the screening Uber officials say will improve safety for passengers.
Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations, said the changes will make the state safer for both medical patients and passengers in Ubers.
The statute applies only to ride-share accident cases that take place after Jan. 1, 2027. It is designed to add what supporters describe as “meaningful guardrails” by improving transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthening safety.
Even as lawmakers and advocates moved toward the compromise, both sides had spent months preparing to go on offense. Uber and lawyers across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to reshape how ride-share-related claims are handled—financially and legally—depending on which campaign prevailed.
Uber’s ballot push sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in auto-accident lawsuits. The company argued that attorneys were swindling their own clients by inflating medical bills, boosting settlement values, and then pocketing a large portion of the resulting payouts.
Trial attorneys countered that a fee cap would punish smaller or difficult cases and block accident victims from court. They responded with their own measure to increase legal liability for ride-share companies in instances where a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride—fueling their case with investigative reporting about assaults in Ubers.
Douglas Saeltzer, head of the Consumer Attorneys of California and the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure, said the trial attorneys felt they weren’t getting a real interest in protecting victims. He argued the negotiations reflected an effort to protect Uber.
With SB 623 signed, both sides agreed to pull their respective ballot measures from the November ballot, stopping the advertising blitz and halting campaigns that had helped both camps amass tens of millions.
Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey), speaking at a Tuesday hearing, said the shift would mean fewer commercials.
But the legal fight did not end at the ballot box.
The new law does more than cap doctors’ charges. It also limits earnings that can be collected by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies purchase a doctor’s stake at a reduced rate and then collect a share of the payout if the case settles.
Saeltzer, speaking at a Tuesday hearing on the bill, criticized the arrangement as money flowing to investors rather than patients, describing private equity and hedge funds buying the liens at steep discounts and then collecting inflated amounts.
SB 623 also requires annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expands the list of offenses that disqualify someone from working.
While the state legislature moved toward compromise, Uber escalated in another arena—lawsuit filings.
In addition to the ballot battle, Uber sued two well-known Los Angeles personal injury firms: the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group. Uber accused them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to increase the value of the claims.
The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case on Wednesday, arguing Uber failed to prove fraud. Both firms have denied wrongdoing.
The lawsuits put plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of defending their conduct, and Wednesday’s hearings drew attention from their own partners in the courtroom.
John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani, told the court that the case reflects an effort by a major company to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources, and chill suits that hold Uber accountable.
Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, rejected that framing and said the suit is not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar, arguing instead that Uber brought the case against the two firms in the state that he described as engaged in naked fraud.
SB 623 Gavin Newsom Uber medical lien system ride-share lawsuits personal injury attorneys Douglas Saeltzer Nicholas Rowley Downtown L.A. Law Group Jacob Emrani background checks