Can I Sue DoorDash or Uber Eats Directly After an Accident? California’s AB 375 Says Yes

If you have been injured in a car accident involving a food delivery driver in California, you are likely facing a frustrating and complex legal battle. For years, massive gig economy platforms like DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub have used the “independent contractor” loophole to shield themselves from liability when their drivers cause severe crashes. They have routinely denied claims, forcing injured victims to fight for scraps from the driver’s personal auto insurance—which almost always denies coverage due to the “business use” exclusion.

However, a groundbreaking shift in California law has fundamentally changed the game. Assembly Bill 375 (AB 375), which went into effect in 2025, has created a powerful new avenue for injury victims to bypass the independent contractor defense and hold the delivery platforms directly accountable. By imposing strict identity verification requirements on delivery apps, AB 375 has inadvertently unlocked access to the platforms’ massive $1 million commercial liability policies in cases of “negligent hiring” and account sharing.

If you were hit by a delivery driver who was using a rented, borrowed, or fake account, this new law could be the key to securing the compensation you need to rebuild your life. For a broader overview of how these claims work, be sure to read our comprehensive guide on Delivery Driver Accident Claims in California.

The Dark Secret of the Gig Economy: Account Sharing

To understand why AB 375 is so revolutionary, you must first understand the pervasive problem it was designed to solve: account sharing.

In the high-turnover world of food delivery, it is an open secret that many drivers operating on platforms like Uber Eats and DoorDash are not the individuals who actually passed the company’s background check. Because the platforms historically relied on weak verification methods, a massive underground market emerged for renting and selling verified delivery accounts.

Individuals who could not pass a background check—such as minors, undocumented workers, people with suspended driver’s licenses, or individuals with a history of reckless driving or DUI convictions—would simply pay a fee to use someone else’s verified account. The delivery platforms largely turned a blind eye to this practice because it ensured a constant supply of cheap labor to fulfill orders quickly.

However, this practice created a massive public safety hazard. When an unauthorized, unvetted driver caused a catastrophic accident, the delivery platform would immediately wash its hands of the situation. They would claim that because the driver was not the authorized account holder, the driver was committing fraud, and therefore, the platform’s commercial insurance policy did not apply. This left the severely injured victim with virtually no path to financial recovery.

How AB 375 Changes the Liability Landscape

California lawmakers recognized this dangerous loophole and passed AB 375 to force delivery platforms to take responsibility for who is actually behind the wheel. The law mandates that food delivery platforms implement continuous, biometric identity verification protocols to ensure that the person making the delivery is the exact same person who passed the background check.

While the primary goal of AB 375 was consumer protection and labor regulation, its impact on personal injury litigation has been seismic. The law establishes a clear, statutory duty for platforms like DoorDash and Uber Eats to verify their drivers. If a platform fails to enforce these strict verification protocols, and an unauthorized driver causes a crash, the platform can no longer hide behind the “fraud” defense.

Instead, the platform’s failure to verify the driver constitutes a breach of its statutory duty. This allows a skilled personal injury attorney to sue the platform directly for negligent hiring or negligent retention.

Bypassing the Independent Contractor Defense

The beauty of a negligent hiring claim under AB 375 is that it completely bypasses the independent contractor defense. You are no longer arguing that the platform is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence (which is difficult to prove when the driver is classified as an independent contractor). Instead, you are arguing that the platform itself was directly negligent by failing to comply with AB 375 and allowing an unvetted, dangerous individual to operate on its network.

When you successfully prove that the platform was directly negligent, you unlock access to the company’s primary commercial liability insurance policy. For major platforms like Uber Eats and DoorDash, this policy carries a minimum limit of $1 million per accident.

The Financial Impact: Unlocking the $1 Million Policy

The difference between settling a claim with a driver’s personal insurance versus the platform’s commercial policy is staggering. Consider the following comparison:

If you suffer a severe injury—such as a traumatic brain injury, a spinal cord injury, or multiple fractures requiring surgery—your medical bills alone can easily exceed $100,000. If you are forced to rely on the driver’s personal policy or the platform’s Period 1 contingent policy, you will be left with crippling medical debt. By leveraging an AB 375 violation, your attorney can tap into the $1 million commercial policy, ensuring that you receive full compensation for your past and future medical care, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

How to Build an AB 375 Negligent Hiring Case

Proving an AB 375 violation requires aggressive and sophisticated legal tactics. The delivery platforms will not voluntarily admit that they failed to verify a driver. Your attorney must force them to hand over the evidence through the formal discovery process.

Here are the critical steps a specialized delivery driver accident attorney will take to build your case:

1.Immediate Evidence Preservation: Your attorney will immediately send a spoliation letter to the delivery platform, legally demanding that they preserve all digital evidence related to the crash. This includes the driver’s GPS telemetry, app login timestamps, and, crucially, the biometric verification logs required by AB 375.

2.Subpoenaing the Driver’s Profile: Your attorney will subpoena the driver’s complete profile from the platform, including the original background check, the photo on file, and the history of identity verification prompts.

3.Cross-Referencing Police Reports: Your attorney will compare the identity of the driver listed on the official police report with the identity of the authorized account holder provided by the platform. If the names or physical descriptions do not match, you have the foundation for an AB 375 violation.

4.Deposing Corporate Representatives: Your attorney may depose the platform’s corporate safety officers to interrogate them on their compliance with AB 375 and their internal procedures for preventing account sharing.

Do Not Fight the Tech Giants Alone

The passage of AB 375 has leveled the playing field for victims of delivery driver accidents in California. However, companies like DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Amazon Flex still employ massive legal teams dedicated to minimizing your payout. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent you from accessing their $1 million commercial policies.

If you have been injured by a delivery driver, you need an attorney who understands the intricacies of the gig economy, the nuances of the “Three Periods” of insurance coverage, and the powerful new tools provided by AB 375. Do not speak to the delivery company’s insurance adjusters, and do not accept a lowball settlement offer.

Contact a dedicated Food Delivery Driver Accident Attorney in Los Angeles immediately to protect your rights, preserve critical digital evidence, and demand the full compensation you deserve. For more detailed information on how these claims are processed and the overall legal strategies involved, please refer to our main article: Delivery Driver Accident Claims in California.