Uber's lawsuit aims to rewrite the rules, not right a wrong

When defendant corporations lose in court, they can appeal. When Uber loses, it sues the entire system.

Last week, Uber filed a federal racketeering (RICO) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, targeting multiple personal injury law firms, a treating physician and outpatient surgery center. The complaint reads like a Hollywood screenplay -- accusing plaintiff attorneys and medical providers of orchestrating fraudulent personal injury claims arising from Uber-related accidents.

But make no mistake, this is not about the nine personal injury claims listed within the Uber lawsuit as fraudulent. This is about legislative influence, public manipulation and corporate immunity at all costs.

Uber's filing comes amid a high-stakes lobbying push in Sacramento to pass Senate Bill 371 (SB 371), a bill that would slash the mandatory $1 million in uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for rideshare accidents down to just $100,000. The timing of the lawsuit is not coincidental; it's strategic.

If these claims were fraudulent, why did Uber pay them?

This central contradiction cannot be overlooked: Uber settled these nine allegedly fraudulent claims. It had every opportunity to deny these claims. It had access to the entirety of each file and all evidence. It had the backing of a multi-billion-dollar corporation and its teams of adjusters, defense counsel and fraud prevention mechanisms in place.

If these cases were so obviously illegitimate, why did Uber pay the claims? Because Uber's allegations are not about truth. They're about politics and PR. Uber now wants to retroactively frame settled claims as part of a "fraud ring," not because new evidence came to light, but because it serves their broader narrative -- one aimed at undermining the credibility of those who advocate for injured passengers and justifying rollbacks to consumer protection laws.

The RICO reach: A dangerous precedent

Uber's use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in this civil context is both aggressive and irresponsible. RICO was designed to combat organized crime, not to intimidate attorneys, doctors and clinics who serve accident victims.

Civil RICO requires proof of a criminal enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity and concrete damages directly caused by that activity. Instead, Uber's complaint strings together routine practices -- legal referrals, medical treatment and negotiated liens -- and recasts them as criminal conspiracy.

This type of weaponized litigation poses a serious threat to the civil justice system. If allowed to proceed unchecked, it invites corporations to convert every high-dollar settlement into a post hoc fraud claim when politically or financially convenient.

SB 371: The real target of Uber's campaign

While the lawsuit targets law firms and physicians, the real victim may be California's injury victims. SB 371, which is backed by Uber and its coalition of supporters, proposes reducing the statutory insurance minimums for TNCs (Transportation Network Companies) from $1 million to $100,000.

If passed, this would gut the ability of injured passengers and third-party drivers to obtain full and fair compensation. According to a 2023 report by the Consumer Attorneys of California, over 78% of claims against Uber and Lyft would have been unpayable in full had SB 371 already been law.

Uber actively steered the legislative process and backed it with multi-million-dollar political capital. During public Assembly committee hearings in April 2025, Uber representatives publicly endorsed the bill, specifically thanked Senator Cabaldon, the bill's sponsor, and framed the legislation as essential to "fix the broken insurance system" driving rideshare costs higher.

Politically, Uber has backed up that rhetoric with deep pockets. Its Uber Innovation PAC, launched in 2021, committed at least $30 million in 2024 toward California state political activities explicitly tied to regulatory reform and ballot initiatives. This PAC is one of the largest single-sponsored committees in the state election cycle, signaling Uber's intent to reshape policy through campaign funding -- not persuasion.

This follows Uber's staggering $59 million contribution to Proposition 22 in 2020 -- the most expensive initiative in California history -- where the company used app-based messaging, on-trip prompts and promotional merchandise to coerce driver participation and voter turnout.

The same political playbook is in motion again: fund the campaign, court the lawmaker, prompt users through the platform and use litigation as the moral proof of a "broken system." This time, the target is the right of every injured passenger to recover for their injuries -- cases that Uber wants stripped of meaningful value, sanitized as fraud and swept under a $100,000 liability cap.

A call to the legal community

This lawsuit must be recognized for what it is: a manufactured narrative designed to serve Uber's political and economic agenda. Lawmakers should see this lawsuit as what it is: a piece of coordinated messaging, not proof of a broken system.

Judges must scrutinize the use of RICO against civil practitioners and demand real, not rhetorical, evidence. The plaintiff bar must stand united

Let's be clear: Uber's goal isn't justice -- it's immunity. And it's time the legal community, media and legislature call that out, loud and clear.