California Senate Bill 623 Explained: The Uber–Trial Lawyer Compromise and What It Means for Rideshare Accident Victims

On June 25, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 623 into law, chaptered as Chapter 17 of the Statutes of 2026. Authored by State Senator Tom Umberg (D–Santa Ana), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the law carries the formal title the Fair Medical Billing & Rideshare Safety Act. But the story behind it is what makes it unusual. SB 623 is the product of a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) — the statewide association of plaintiff-side trial lawyers — who had each qualified competing ballot initiatives for the November 2026 election and, by some accounts, had collectively committed more than $150 million to campaigns for and against them.

If you have been injured in an Uber or Lyft crash, this new law changes some of the rules that govern how your medical damages are calculated. It does not eliminate your right to recover, and in several important respects it is far less sweeping than what Uber originally proposed. This guide breaks down exactly what SB 623 does, how it fits into California’s broader rideshare accident legal framework, and what it practically means for injured passengers, drivers, pedestrians, and motorists.

How We Got Here: Two Ballot Measures That Never Reached the Voters

To understand SB 623, you have to understand the fight it ended. In the run-up to the November 2026 election, two opposing camps had each qualified a statewide ballot initiative.

Uber backed a measure that would have reshaped California personal injury law well beyond ridesharing. It sought to cap attorney contingency fees and limit how injured people could recover certain medical expenses — and, critically, it would have applied to many motor-vehicle injury claims across the state, not just Uber crashes. Consumer advocates and trial lawyers argued that capping contingency fees would make it harder for seriously injured people to find a lawyer willing to take their case, and that the medical-cost restrictions would leave victims undercompensated.

On the other side, the Consumer Attorneys of California had qualified a competing initiative aimed at increasing Uber’s liability for sexual misconduct committed against riders and drivers using its platform.

Rather than spend the fall in a costly, unpredictable public campaign, the two sides negotiated. CAOC President Douglas Saeltzer played a central role in the talks. The result was SB 623 — moved through the Legislature and signed before the deadline to withdraw initiatives from the ballot. Once the Governor signed it, both Uber and CAOC formally pulled their measures at the Secretary of State’s office. In Senator Umberg’s words, the law is “a testament to the fact that the best public policy is often built through negotiation.”

The practical upshot for injured Californians is important: because the deal was struck, Uber’s far broader proposal — the one that would have capped contingency fees and limited medical recovery in all crashes — never became law. SB 623 is narrower by design.

The Core Change: New Limits on Medical-Lien Damages in Rideshare Cases

The heart of SB 623 concerns medical liens. A medical lien is a common arrangement in personal injury cases: instead of paying up front or billing health insurance, an injured person receives treatment from a provider who agrees to be paid later, out of the eventual settlement or judgment. Lien-based treatment gives people without health coverage — or those who cannot afford deductibles and copays — access to care while their claim is pending. But it has also drawn criticism, because the billed amounts on liens are sometimes far higher than what insurers actually pay for the same service.

The 70th-percentile FAIR Health cap

For a civil case, claim, action, or arbitration against a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver arising from an automobile accident, SB 623 caps the maximum recovery of damages for any medical expense provided by a lien-based provider. Recovery for that service may not exceed the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.’s billed-charges database (or a comparable commercially recognized billed-charges database) for the same or similar service in the applicable geographic area at the time the service was rendered. The law also bars the introduction of evidence of charges that exceed that recoverable amount.

This is a meaningful shift. Under longstanding California case law — chiefly Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) — an injured plaintiff’s recoverable past medical damages are already limited to the “reasonable value” of the care, not the sticker-price billed amount. What SB 623 adds, in the narrow category of rideshare-connected auto cases, is a bright-line statutory benchmark (the 70th percentile of a recognized charges database) for lien-based treatment, in place of a case-by-case fight over what “reasonable value” means.

The lien-sale cap: recovery limited to what the lien actually cost

SB 623 also targets a practice that has grown in recent years: the sale or transfer of medical liens to third parties, such as medical-receivables funders. Under the new law, if a medical lien, receivable, or right to payment has been sold or otherwise transferred, the maximum recoverable medical-expense damages cannot exceed the total consideration paid or payable to acquire the lien. In plain terms: if a funding company bought a $50,000 lien for $15,000, the recoverable damage for that expense is capped at $15,000.

The law makes any agreement relating to the sale or transfer of a lien — and the price paid — discoverable in litigation. And it provides that an undisclosed lien sale or transfer cannot be asserted against a defendant, insurer, settlement, judgment, or settlement proceeds. Related medical-lien financial relationships and attorney-referral information are likewise made discoverable.

New conflict-of-interest rules for attorneys

SB 623 adds ethics-style restrictions aimed at self-dealing between lawyers and medical providers in these cases. For an attorney representing a plaintiff under a contingency-fee agreement in a covered rideshare claim, the law makes it unlawful to:

• Refer a client to a health care provider in which the attorney — or a member of the attorney’s immediate family — has a direct ownership interest;
• Split fees or receive other specified compensation in connection with furnishing lien-based medical treatment to the client; and
• Provide compensation (directly or through the firm) for referrals of clients to lien-based providers for lien-based treatment.

These provisions are intended to reduce conflicts of interest and increase transparency for injured consumers. The bill states that its provisions are severable, meaning that if a court strikes one part, the rest survives.

The Safety Half of the Law: Background Checks and Rider-Matching Options

Not every part of SB 623 concerns litigation. The “Rideshare Safety” half of the Act strengthens the screening rules that transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft must follow.

Expanded disqualifying offenses and annual background checks

California law already prohibited a TNC from retaining a driver who appears on the national sex-offender registry or who has certain terrorism, human-trafficking, violent-felony, or recent misdemeanor convictions. SB 623 expands the list of disqualifying offenses and, importantly, changes the timing of screening. Criminal background checks must now be completed before a driver’s account is activated, and then repeated at least once annually thereafter — closing a gap in which a driver could be cleared once and never re-screened. Because the change expands the scope of a crime, it creates a state-mandated local program.

Optional women-to-women matching

SB 623 also authorizes a safety-oriented matching feature. Notwithstanding the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California’s general public-accommodations anti-discrimination law), a TNC or charter-party carrier may allow a woman passenger, or a participating woman driver, to indicate a preference to be matched with a woman driver or woman passenger, respectively, and to facilitate matches based on that preference. Participation is voluntary. These provisions apply retroactively as provided in the statute.

Just as Important: What SB 623 Did NOT Do

Headlines about the Uber deal have caused understandable confusion. Here is what did not change:

• It did not cap attorney contingency fees. Uber’s ballot proposal would have; the compromise dropped that.
• It does not apply to non-rideshare crashes. The medical-damages limits are confined to claims involving a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver. A standard two-car collision with no rideshare involvement is unaffected.
• It did not eliminate your right to sue or recover. You can still pursue full compensation for the negligence that injured you — including non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, lost wages, and future care.
• It left insurer and government reimbursement rights alone. Medicare, Medi-Cal, workers’ compensation, and private health-insurance reimbursement rules are unchanged.
• It did not change California’s TNC insurance tiers. The mandatory coverage structure under AB 2293 — including the $1 million commercial liability policy during an accepted trip — remains in place.

Where SB 623 Fits in California’s Fast-Changing Rideshare Law

SB 623 is the latest in a string of changes that have reshaped rideshare injury claims in a very short time. To see the full picture, it helps to line them up:

The through-line is clear: the coverage and recovery landscape for rideshare victims has tightened, which makes strategy and documentation more important than ever. If a third party (not your Uber or Lyft driver) causes the crash and is uninsured, for example, what happens when the other driver is at fault now turns heavily on your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. And when the driver’s app was off entirely, you are in Period 0 territory, where the TNC generally has no obligation at all. For a sense of how these variables move real-world outcomes, see our analysis of top Uber and Lyft accident settlement amounts in California.

What SB 623 Means If You Are Injured in an Uber or Lyft Crash

For most seriously injured victims, SB 623 does not change the fundamentals of a strong claim — but it does reward careful handling. A few practical points:

• Use available health insurance when you can. Because the law caps lien-based recovery against the FAIR Health benchmark but leaves insurance reimbursement rights intact, treating through your own coverage is often cleaner and better protects your net recovery.
• Document everything early. App screenshots, trip records, medical records, and bills are all critical. If your treatment involves a lien, the provider’s charges will be measured against a database benchmark — so consistent, well-documented care matters.
• Understand the fault framework. California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), so you can recover even if you were partially at fault — your award is simply reduced by your percentage of responsibility. Insurers routinely try to inflate that percentage.
• Get counsel involved before you talk to adjusters. The steps you take in the first days shape the entire case. Our guide on what to do after an Uber or Lyft accident in California walks through them in order.
• Know that denials are not the end. Rideshare claim denials are among the most frequently reversed in personal injury law. If you have been told no, read what to do if Uber or Lyft denies your claim.

For background on how these claims differ from ordinary car-accident cases in the first place, see the impact of Uber/Lyft accidents on your personal injury claim and the key legal differences between Uber and Lyft claims. If you simply want to understand the scale of the risk, our compilation of rideshare accident statistics puts California’s numbers in context.

Frequently Asked Questions About California SB 623

Does SB 623 apply to all California car accidents?

No. The medical-damages limits in SB 623 apply only to civil claims arising from an automobile accident involving a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver. A standard collision with no rideshare connection is not affected by these provisions. This narrow scope was one of the central features of the compromise — Uber’s original ballot proposal would have reached far more crashes.

Will SB 623 reduce how much my rideshare injury claim is worth?

It can affect one component — recoverable damages for treatment provided on a medical lien — by capping that amount at the 70th percentile of a recognized billed-charges database for the region. It does not touch your right to recover non-economic damages, lost income, future medical needs, or the underlying insurance coverage. Whether the cap affects your case depends on how you were treated and whether liens are involved, which is exactly the kind of question to review with an attorney early.

Did SB 623 cap attorney fees in personal injury cases?

No. A contingency-fee cap was part of Uber’s proposed ballot initiative, but it was dropped in the negotiated compromise. SB 623 does not limit contingency fees. It does prohibit certain conflicts — such as an attorney referring a client to a medical provider the attorney owns, or paying for referrals to lien-based providers.

What is a lien-based provider, and why does the law single them out?

A lien-based provider treats an injured person on a promise to be paid out of the future settlement or judgment, rather than billing health insurance up front. This is valuable for people without coverage, but the amounts billed on liens have sometimes exceeded what insurers pay for identical care. SB 623 responds by benchmarking recoverable lien charges to the FAIR Health database and by capping recovery to the price actually paid when a lien has been sold to a third party.

Does SB 623 change Uber and Lyft’s $1 million insurance coverage?

No. The mandatory TNC insurance tiers established by AB 2293 — including the $1 million commercial liability policy that applies while a driver is on an accepted trip — are not changed by SB 623. Note, however, that a separate 2026 law, SB 371, reduced the mandatory uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage that protects passengers when a third party is at fault. That is a different issue from what SB 623 addresses.

When did SB 623 take effect?

Governor Newsom signed SB 623 on June 25, 2026, and it was chaptered as Chapter 17 of the Statutes of 2026. Because the legal landscape is evolving quickly, and because how a given provision applies can depend on the specific facts and timing of your accident and treatment, you should confirm current application with a qualified California attorney.

Talk to a California Rideshare Accident Lawyer

California’s rideshare laws have changed more in the last two years than in the decade before. SB 623 is the newest piece — and while it is far narrower than what Uber first sought, it does change how medical damages are handled in Uber and Lyft cases. Getting knowledgeable legal advice early can make a real difference in the outcome of your claim.

At Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, we have spent over 30 years handling complex vehicle-accident and personal injury claims throughout Los Angeles and Southern California, including Uber and Lyft accident cases. We know California’s TNC insurance framework, we know how these companies defend claims, and we stay current as the law shifts. You can review our case results and then call us for a free, confidential consultation.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and their application depends on the specific facts of each case. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed California attorney.