Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
from Dan WaltersCalMatters
This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Two commercials among the many that aired during Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast did not sell beer, cars, fast food or cell phone service; rather, they were the opening salvos of what could turn out to be one of the most expensive voting duels of the year.
One site condemned personal injury lawyers who promise justice for accident and assault victims but take large chunks of settlements and judgments. It stated, “Billboard lawyers are making millions while Californians are left broke and broke.”
The ride-sharing company Uber paid for the ad it subliminally promoted Voting sponsored by Uber this, if placed on the November ballot and approved by voters, would sharply limit the contingency fees lawyers receive in car accident lawsuits.
The other ad, sponsored by personal injury lawyers, cites a series of New York Times articles about sexually assaulting co-passengers by focusing on Uber. It sets the stage for at least one of three filed measures sponsored by lawyers who, if successful, would collectively impose new regulations on Uber and other ride-sharing companies and facilitate their prosecution.
Tens of millions of dollars have already been set aside by warring factions in anticipation of an all-out political war next fall. And given the financial stakes and the deep pockets of the protagonists, the costs can reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office gave official titles to the measures 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 title of Uber’s measure says it would limit the ability of accident victims to sue for damages. The legal action focuses on holding ride-sharing companies responsible for passengers’ injuries.
It’s yet another example of the tendency of California attorneys general to favor one side or the other when writing ballot headlines, and yet another argument for having this critical work done by some body other than a partisan office. Bonta’s slanted headlines could sway the outcome because many voters don’t delve into the background or true effects of what they have to decide.
The Uber vs. Lawyer ballot clash, if it happens, will also be another example of this initiative process — created more than a century ago to enable Californians to bypass a legislature dominated by powerful interests — has become an arena for just such interests.
Virtually every election cycle sees at least one special interest duel, such as the battle in 2022 between tribes of casino owners and sports betting firms over whether California should allow betting on sports events, which resulted in voters rejecting both competing measures.
This year’s carpool battle is also the latest chapter in decades of friction, called “tort wars”, between lawyers seeking to expand the field of potential personal injury lawsuits and business interests seeking to limit or even reduce the possibilities for such claims.
It’s reminiscent of the 1988 multiple-vote battle over a car accident lawsuit and the infamous 1987 “napkin deal” between competing interests at Frank Fath’s restaurant, temporarily suspending hostilities over issues such as medical malpractice and smoking injuries.
It’s clear from the New York Times articles that sexual assault is a horrific aspect of the explosive growth of the ride-sharing industry.
Meanwhile, a series of Articles in the Los Angeles Times revealed that unethical lawyers recruited plaintiffs to extort vast sums of money from schools and other public facilities, after poorly written state law made it easier for sexual assault victims to collect damages many years after the events.
These problems need a legislative fix, not competing ballot measures that would depend on misleading campaign propaganda and further distort California’s flawed initiative system.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.