Two ads among the many aired during Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast didn’t sell beer, cars, fast food or cell phone services; rather they were opening salvos of what could be one of the year’s most expensive ballot measure duels.
One spot denounced personal injury attorneys who promise justice for victims of accidents and assaults but take big chunks of settlements and judgments. It declared: “The billboard lawyers make millions, while Californians are left broke and broken.”
Rideshare company Uber paid for the ad, which subliminally promotes an Uber-sponsored ballot measure that, if qualified for the November ballot and passed by voters, would sharply limit contingency fees attorneys receive in auto accident lawsuits.
The other ad, sponsored by personal injury attorneys, cited a series of New York Times articles about sexual assaults of rideshare passengers, focusing on Uber. It sets the stage for at least one of three lawyer-sponsored measures that have been filed which, if successful, would collectively impose new regulations on Uber and other rideshare companies and make it easier to sue them.
Tens of millions of dollars have already been set aside by the contending factions in anticipation of an all-out political war next fall. And given the financial stakes and the protagonists’ deep pockets, spending could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office gave the measures formal titles to appear on the ballot. Not surprisingly, they have a distinctly political tone — negative on the Uber measure and positive on the lawyer-sponsored measures.
The Uber measure title says it would limit the ability of accident victims to sue for damages. The lawyer measures emphasize holding rideshare companies responsible for passenger injuries.
It’s another example of the tendency of California attorneys general to favor one side or the other when writing ballot titles, and another argument for having that critical chore done by some authority other than a partisan official. Bonta’s slanted titles could affect the outcome because many voters don’t delve into the background or true effects of what they are being asked to decide.
The Uber vs. lawyer ballot clash, if it occurs, would also be another example of how the initiative process — created more than a century ago to empower Californians to bypass a Legislature dominated by powerful interests — has morphed into an arena for just such interests.
Virtually every election cycle sees at least one special interest duel, such as the 2022 battle between casino-owning tribes and sports wagering firms over whether California should allow betting on athletic events, which resulted in voters rejecting both competing measures.
This year’s rideshare battle also is the latest chapter of a decades-long friction, dubbed “tort wars,” between lawyers seeking to expand the field of potential personal injury lawsuits and business interests seeking to limit or even shrink the opportunities for such suits.
It’s reminiscent of the 1988 multi-measure ballot battle over auto accident litigation, and of the infamous 1987 “napkin deal” worked out among competing interests in Frank Fat’s restaurant, temporarily suspending hostilities over such issues as medical malpractice and injuries from smoking.
It’s obvious from the New York Times articles that sexual assault is a terrible aspect of the rideshare industry’s explosive growth.
Meanwhile, a series of Los Angeles Times articles revealed that unethical attorneys have recruited plaintiffs to squeeze huge amounts of money from schools and other public facilities, after a poorly written state law made it easier for victims of sexual assault to collect damages many years after the events.
These problems need legislative correction, not competing ballot measures that will hinge on misleading campaign propaganda and further distort California’s flawed initiative system.
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.
Leave a Reply