Uber's assault on civil justice: a play out of the corporate intimidation playbook

Uber Technologies has launched an unprecedented attack on America's civil justice system, filing federal RICO lawsuits against personal injury attorneys and medical providers who serve rideshare accident victims in three separate states -- Florida, New York, and now California. This coordinated campaign represents the latest evolution of corporate intimidation tactics designed to safeguard profits by silencing those who hold companies accountable for harm.

The systematic strategy reveals a corporate playbook that transforms legitimate injury claims into criminal conspiracies, personal injury lawyers into racketeers, and accident victims seeking justice into participants in fraud. Far from protecting consumers, Uber's RICO litigation threatens to create a chilling effect across the legal profession that will leave ordinary injury victims unable to obtain representation against well-funded corporate defendants.

Uber's litigation campaign targets prominent personal injury firms and medical providers who treat rideshare accident victims. The recent Los Angeles case filed in July of 2025 exemplifies the company's aggressive strategy, naming Downtown LA Law Group, The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, and several medical providers and facilities as defendants in an alleged racketeering conspiracy, as well as fraudulent business practices.

Uber's allegations focus on vilifying claimants who suffered legitimate injuries and received necessary medical treatment. They not only mischaracterize essential spinal surgeries and rehabilitation as "medically unnecessary" procedures, but then go further to claim these treatments were performed as part of a criminal conspiracy between the law firms and health care providers to inflate and fabricate injuries and damages in the hopes of getting big payouts.

While Uber makes such dramatic accusations against defendants, Uber's own settlement history undermines these fraud allegations. The company never tried a single case it cites as fraudulent. If Uber truly believed the claims were meritless, it had every opportunity to take them to trial. Instead, Uber settled those cases after months of litigation and discovery, only to later characterize them as criminal enterprises.

This reveals the real agenda: Uber wants to have it both ways. They settle cases when it's convenient, then weaponize those same settlements as evidence of fraud to intimidate future injury victims and their attorneys. It's a calculated strategy to shift the financial burden of accidents onto others while protecting Uber's profits.

What is RICO and how it was intended to be used

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted in 1970 with a specific and narrow purpose: dismantling organized crime syndicates that had infiltrated legitimate businesses. Congress designed RICO to combat the Mafia, loan sharks, and other criminal enterprises that operated through patterns of racketeering activity including murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion and drug trafficking.

RICO's legislative history makes clear that Congress intended the statute to target criminal organizations, not legitimate business disputes. The law was meant to reach "the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce," as stated in the original congressional findings. The focus was on enterprises controlled by criminals who used violence, corruption, and systematic criminality to operate illegal businesses or corrupt legitimate ones.

The statute's drafters specifically emphasized that RICO should address situations where traditional prosecution methods failed because criminal organizations had become so sophisticated and insulated that individual prosecutions couldn't dismantle the entire enterprise. RICO was the tool to reach the bosses who ordered crimes but kept their hands clean, and to forfeit the ill-gotten gains that funded continued criminal activity.

But now, Corporate America is perverting this anti-organized crime statute into a weapon against civil litigation. When companies like Uber use RICO against personal injury attorneys and medical providers, they're not combating organized crime -- they're weaponizing a criminal statute to avoid paying legitimate injury claims. This represents a fundamental corruption of RICO's intended purpose, transforming a law designed to fight the Mafia into a tool for corporate intimidation.

The irony is profound: RICO was created to serve justice by stopping criminals from corrupting legitimate businesses, but corporations now use RICO to criminalize legitimate businesses who serve justice. This inversion of the statute's purpose would be shocking to the legislators who crafted RICO to protect legitimate commerce from criminal infiltration.

Uber's true motivations

So why is Uber doing this? Why use laws meant for organized crime against injured victims and their lawyers and doctors? Simple: money. Uber's insurance costs are affecting their profits, especially in states that actually protect consumers. Their solution isn't to operate more safely or accept responsibility -- it's to destroy the system that holds them accountable.

But here's what Uber won't tell you: They want to make billions in profits while sticking others with the bill when accidents happen. When their drivers cause crashes, Uber wants to pay victims as little as possible, regardless of how badly they're hurt.

Uber has consistently employed aggressive legal strategies to minimize accountability when facing liability claims. The company has paid millions to fight extensive litigation to avoid classifying drivers as employees, and spent over $200 million alone on California's Proposition 22 to undermine worker protection laws. Uber routinely uses mandatory arbitration clauses and liability waivers to shield itself from public lawsuits, while lobbying for regulatory changes that limit corporate responsibility in accident cases. The company has also lobbied for reduced insurance coverage limit requirements and caps on attorney contingency fees, seeking to limit both the resources available to injury victims for full recovery of claims and their ability to obtain quality legal representation.

Yet despite this aggressive stance attacking the systems and professionals that enable accountability, Uber consistently avoids the very forum where their fraud allegations could be tested: the courtroom. The company routinely settles personal injury cases rather than taking them to trial, only to later characterize these same settled cases as criminal enterprises. If Uber truly believed these claims were fraudulent, they had every opportunity to vindicate themselves before juries who could expose the alleged "conspiracies" and award minimal damages. Instead, they chose to pay settlements, then weaponize those same settlements as evidence of fraud. This calculated avoidance of trial reveals the truth: Uber knows these are legitimate injury claims that would likely result in significant jury verdicts, making settlement and subsequent RICO intimidation tactics far more cost-effective than facing accountability in court.

Uber's attempt to undermine the right of injured victims to quality medical care

Uber's complaints consistently attack the medical lien system by characterizing necessary medical procedures as "excessive," "unnecessary," or "inflated." The company argues that when accident victims receive treatment from physicians who accept payment through medical liens rather than direct insurance reimbursement, this somehow constitutes evidence of fraud. Uber portrays the collaborative relationship between personal injury attorneys and medical providers as an inherently corrupt "referral scheme" designed to manufacture claims rather than treat genuine injuries.

The real issue Uber is attacking isn't fraud - it's choice. When accident victims work with attorneys who can arrange treatment on a lien basis, they get access to specialists who can provide individualized, quality care. Compare that to what insurance companies prefer: high-volume, assembly-line treatment at the lowest possible cost.

For many people, health insurance represents a significant expense they cannot afford. For others, the type and quality of insurance they pay for is based on anticipated routine care needs, not catastrophic injuries caused by others' negligence. Whether they have employer-sponsored insurance, government programs like Medi-Cal or Medicare, or remain uninsured, these individuals never anticipate suffering a serious brain injury or needing spine procedures or surgery when making their healthcare coverage choices. They're simply trying to afford basic healthcare within their means.

When serious injuries occur, the limitations of their existing coverage become starkly apparent. Patients face excessive wait times to see specialists, navigate bureaucratic red tape, discover their insurance only covers limited treatment options, cannot afford the required co-pays and deductibles for specialized care, or are uninsured altogether and have no coverage at all. The medical lien system bridges this gap by connecting patients with experienced physicians who understand how to provide appropriate care and allows deferred payment to help offset financial hardship when they are hurt. This system also ensures proper documentation of treatment records that can withstand later scrutiny by defendants attempting to escape responsibility, leveling the playing field against corporate efforts to minimize valid injury claims.

This underscores the need to protect the lien system. Medical liens aren't "kickback schemes" -- they're IOUs that make quality care accessible. Just like student loans allow people to get education they couldn't otherwise afford, medical liens allow injury victims to get treatment from specialists rather than being forced into whatever bottom-tier provider their insurance company prefers.

Uber wants to criminalize patient choice. They want accident victims stuck with whatever care their insurance will cover upfront, regardless of whether it's adequate for their injuries. When precision surgery is required where one wrong move can cause permanent disability or death, patients deserve access to the best available care.

Uber consistently argues that when doctors charge more than what insurance typically pays, this price difference itself proves fraud. But this "inflated billing" argument is a smokescreen that hides their real agenda. Defense lawyers routinely claim that "reasonable" medical charges should be capped at whatever Medicare or insurance companies pay doctors. However, this comparison is fundamentally dishonest. Those government and insurance reimbursement rates are artificially low and don't even come close to covering what it actually costs to run a quality medical practice.

Think about what this means in practice: a doctor operating under Medi-Cal/Medicare rates has to crank out eight to ten surgeries a day just to keep the lights on. They're running an assembly line, moving from patient to patient with minimal time for individualized care or proper consultation. Meanwhile, a physician who can charge market rates can focus on one or two surgeries, providing the kind of careful, individualized attention that complex spinal procedures demand.

We're talking about people who were injured through no fault of their own, facing procedures so delicate that patients must sign waivers acknowledging they could be left paralyzed if the surgeon makes even the slightest error. Do we really want to force these vulnerable patients into assembly-line medicine? Uber's argument essentially demands that accident victims accept whatever bottom-tier care government-controlled rates can provide, regardless of how complex or life-threatening their injuries may be.

This is about fundamental patient choice and market economics. People choose to pay premium prices for quality every day: designer clothes over discount brands, luxury cars over basic transportation, fine dining over fast food, premium jewelry over costume pieces -- all based on their perception of value and quality. We accept that consumers should have the right to choose what they're willing to pay for everything from a meal to a handbag. Yet when it comes to healthcare -- something that literally affects whether someone walks again or lives in permanent pain - corporate defendants argue victims should be forced into bottom-tier, assembly-line medical care. When someone suffers a serious injury, they should have the same right to choose quality medical care and decide what they consider reasonable value for procedures that will affect the rest of their lives.

Uber argues that when doctors reduce their bills after a settlement or verdict, this proves personal injury lawyers and physicians are engaged in fraud. This "discount proves fraud" logic is absurd. Nobody argues that movie theaters are fraudulent because they offer senior discounts, or that restaurants are criminal enterprises because they have happy hour specials. More importantly, this exact same practice happens millions of times every day in routine healthcare. When physicians submit bills to Medicare, Medi-Cal, and private insurance companies, they bill their standard rates but accept whatever the insurance pays as full payment -- effectively writing off the difference. Under Uber's logic, virtually every doctor in America commits fraud every time they accept an insurance payment. But corporate defendants want to force everyone to accept the lowest possible rates, eliminating patient choice entirely.

Fortunately, our justice system doesn't let corporations decide what medical care is worth. These cases are decided by juries who evaluate whether treatment is reasonable and necessary. The market, through countless verdicts and settlements, validates appropriate medical charges when the care is justified. Voluntary reductions don't prove original charges were unreasonable any more than sale prices prove a store's regular prices are fraudulent.

How Uber's misuse of RICO has a devastating impact on access to justice

Corporate RICO litigation creates significant barriers to legal representation through economic intimidation and chilling effects. These attacks produce a chilling effect across the legal profession, with firms becoming reluctant to take on corporate defendants due to fear of retaliation and physicians who are providing quality care to patients may refuse to treat or defer payments to patients who seek immediate specialized care without having to wait long periods to obtain appointments and have no choice of physician.

Defending a RICO case can cost millions in legal fees, while the threat of treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) multiplies potential exposure exponentially. Under RICO, successful plaintiffs automatically recover three times their actual damages plus attorney's fees -- meaning even modest claims can result in devastating financial judgments. This treble damages provision transforms RICO into a powerful intimidation weapon: even if Uber's actual damages are relatively small, defendants face the prospect of paying three times that amount plus Uber's legal costs, creating enormous pressure to settle or abandon legitimate practices entirely. This creates uncertainty for attorneys and physicians about what conduct could trigger RICO liability, leading to defensive practice behavior that ultimately hurts clients.

The economic vulnerability is particularly acute for solo practitioners and small firms that represent most injury victims. Small firms typically operate on tight margins, leaving little capacity to defend against million-dollar corporate litigation campaigns. Federal cases are notoriously expensive and complex, while RICO cases multiply these costs dramatically. This threat is even more significant to physicians and health care facilities that have high operating expenses and rely on revenues from procedures and exams.

This creates a troubling two-tier system of justice: one for high-value claims that can survive corporate intimidation, another for valid but modest claims that become too expensive to pursue under the threat of RICO retaliation.

Uber's not the first to use corporate intimidation tactics to collaterally attack opponents

Uber's strategy follows a well-established corporate playbook pioneered by other major companies seeking to avoid accountability. Major corporations have used RICO against environmental attorneys, human rights lawyers, and other advocates who represent clients against corporate interests.

Chevron Corporation's decade-long campaign against environmental attorney Steven Donziger demonstrates the devastating effectiveness of corporate RICO tactics. After Donziger won a $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron for Amazon oil contamination in Ecuador, Chevron refused to pay and instead launched a RICO countersuit claiming the judgment was fraudulently obtained through bribery of Ecuadorian judges. Chevron hired Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to pursue the case and deployed private investigators to conduct surveillance on Donziger. When Chevron won the civil RICO case, the federal judge ordered Donziger to turn over his computer and client files to assist Chevron's collection efforts. When Donziger refused citing attorney-client privilege, he was held in criminal contempt -- not for organized crime activity, but for refusing to help his corporate opponent collect evidence. Through private prosecutors (after federal prosecutors declined the case), Donziger was ultimately imprisoned for over 900 days -- more time than any attorney in U.S. history for contempt. This systematic destruction of an opposing attorney created legal precedent for using civil RICO to criminalize advocacy against major corporations.

Drummond Company's ongoing RICO case against human rights attorney Terrence Collingsworth shows how corporations characterize witness protection payments as "bribes" and legitimate legal advocacy as racketeering. Collingsworth reported spending "2,000 hours (a full lawyer's year) defending against charges" while Colombian prosecutors charged Drummond executives with conspiracy in the murders his clients alleged.

The tobacco industry perfected these intimidation strategies in the 1950s-1990s, with Reynolds counsel explicitly stating: "The way we won these cases was not by spending all of Reynolds' money, but by making that other son of a bitch spend all his." Corporate defense strategies included comprehensive personal investigations of plaintiffs and attorneys, examining their private lives for any information that could be used to discredit or intimidate them.

Johnson & Johnson's current tactics in talc litigation include suing independent scientists to silence unfavorable research and employing the notorious "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcy maneuver -- a scheme where profitable companies create subsidiaries to hold their liabilities, then immediately put those underfunded subsidiaries into bankruptcy while the parent company continues operating and making billions. This allows J&J to force tens of thousands of cancer victims into bankruptcy settlements worth pennies on the dollar while protecting the company's valuable assets from legitimate claims. These patterns demonstrate how corporate intimidation has evolved from defending individual lawsuits to systematically attacking the infrastructure of civil justice.

Expert condemnation of corporate RICO misuse

Legal scholars and professional organizations have strongly condemned corporate use of RICO against attorneys as a fundamental threat to the justice system. Iowa Law Review analysis revealed that "[m]embers of the defense bar have made no secret about the fact that these RICO cases are part of a larger strategy to stamp out large-scale aggregate litigation."

The American Civil Liberties Union warned that civil RICO's potential for chilling First Amendment rights of expression and criticized the statute's expansion beyond its original organized crime focus. Even as far back as 1989, Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in a speech that "the legislative history of the RICO Act strongly suggests that Congress never intended that civil RICO should be used, as it is today, in ordinary commercial disputes far divorced from the influences of organized crime . . . I think the time has arrived for Congress to . . . limit its scope to the sort of wrongs that are connected to organized crime."

Uber's corporate deception under the guise of bringing reform

Uber's RICO litigation operates alongside sophisticated tort reform campaigns funded through organizations designed to appear as grassroots consumer protection while advancing corporate interests. Uber's $5 million Nevada campaign to cap contingency fees represents the latest evolution of strategies pioneered by the tobacco industry.

Corporate-funded tort reform organizations have spent decades reshaping civil justice laws. These efforts typically involve substantial corporate investment in campaigns designed to limit accountability and reduce compensation for injury victims.

So-called "citizens" organizations, despite their grassroots appearance, are often corporate-created entities funded by major industries. These groups coordinate messaging to influence public opinion and elections while obscuring their corporate backing.

Damage caps and other tort "reforms" have demonstrably reduced compensation for injury victims, with the impacts falling disproportionately on women, elderly, and low-income victims who suffer the greatest harm from reduced access to justice.

Protecting civil justice from corporate intimidation and bullying

The broader context reveals a civil justice system already in crisis. The vast majority of low-income Americans do not receive adequate legal help for civil legal problems, representing a fundamental breakdown in equal access to justice that corporate intimidation tactics will only worsen.

Personal injury cases represent a significant portion of civil litigation, with settlements providing crucial financial recovery for families facing devastating medical costs. Brain injuries alone can result in lifetime medical expenses in the millions.

The economic impact on families without legal representation is devastating. Studies consistently show that attorneys settle cases for significantly more than what unrepresented individuals receive. Legal representation makes the difference between meaningful recovery and financial devastation for injury victims.

While insurance fraud exists, it represents a small fraction of legitimate claims. The vast majority of personal injury claims involve real injuries requiring real treatment, not the systematic fraud that corporate defendants claim to be combating.

The current and historical corporate litigation attacks on consumers reveals a coordinated corporate strategy to reshape America's civil justice system through intimidation, economic warfare, and systematic attacks on legal representation. Uber's RICO litigation represents the latest front in a multi-decade campaign to externalize corporate accountability costs while maximizing profits.

This threatens the constitutional right to trial by jury and equal access to justice. When corporations can transform legitimate injury claims into criminal conspiracies and personal injury lawyers into racketeers, the balance between corporate power and individual rights collapses entirely.

The stakes extend far beyond individual cases. Uber's lawsuits risk chilling access to care and legal representation for injured individuals, particularly low-income workers, immigrants and rideshare passengers without comprehensive insurance. The systematic nature of corporate intimidation tactics creates barriers that will prevent future victims from obtaining representation against well-funded defendants.

The civil justice system serves as democracy's accountability mechanism, ensuring that even powerful corporations face consequences for harm they cause. Corporate RICO litigation seeks to break this mechanism by making it too dangerous and expensive for attorneys to represent injured parties against major companies.

We cannot allow corporations to criminalize accountability itself. When companies like Uber can use federal racketeering laws to intimidate attorneys and medical providers, they're not protecting consumers - they're protecting their profits at the expense of public safety and individual rights.

The response must be equally systematic: defending the right to representation, exposing corporate intimidation tactics, and ensuring that accountability mechanisms remain available to those harmed by corporate conduct. Bar associations, legal organizations, and individual practitioners must recognize this threat for what it is and respond with unified resistance.

The choice is clear: a justice system that serves all Americans equally, or one captured by corporate interests that can criminalize accountability itself. Uber's RICO litigation campaign forces this choice upon us, demanding that we defend civil justice before corporate intimidation succeeds in silencing it entirely.