California lawmakers weigh Uber, Consumer Attorneys compromise ahead of deadline
The Legislature will consider a proposed bill to execute a compromise Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California reached last week setting aside competing ballot measures to work on safety legislation around ride-hailing companies.
Senate Bill 623, sponsored by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Villa Park, and Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, would limit safety damages in some lawsuits involving medical liens against rideshare companies while instituting more stringent safety rules like increased background checks.
The bill caps damages recouped from medical-lien lawsuits at the 70th percentile for other similarly billed cases in the area. Medical liens are a type of legal agreement between providers and patients in which patients receive care upfront while agreeing to pay back the provider using proceeds from any legal settlement they may receive.
Ride-hailing companies would also be required to background check every driver before hiring them, and continue to do so on an annual basis. Apps would also be allowed to implement features like allowing female drivers to request female passengers, and vice versa.
Lawmakers have until Thursday to send a bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for consideration, the last day initiatives can be taken off the ballot before the Nov. 3 general election.
Before then, Uber and the Consumer Attorneys had spent millions and were planning to spend millions more to sway voters. Uber argued that the attorneys were trying to line their pockets by forcing car-accident victims into predatory relationships with medical providers, while the attorneys accused the rideshare giant of trying to escape accountability by rewriting civil liability laws.
Umberg said his and Papan’s bill was a “testament to the negotiators” who ended up sparing Uber and the Consumer Attorneys a protracted ballot fight and kept Newsom from having to weigh in.
“The best public policy comes out of compromise,” he said.
Though the compromise is moving forward in the Legislature, a separate dispute over Republican California congressman’s effort to include sweeping protections for ride-hailing companies in a must-pass federal spending bill appears to continue.
