Uber reaches deal to avoid election confrontation with lawyers

[RandySF]

Uber was in the hot seat as two measures that target the ride-hailing company’s financial liabilities officially qualified for the November ballot — for less than 24 hours. On Thursday afternoon, the ride-hailing company and a group of trial attorneys issued a joint statement that they had reached an agreement and plan to throw out their battling ballot measures.

Uber and a group of personal injury attorneys spent tens of millions campaigning to qualify the two measures to be on the ballot this November. The California Secretary of State’s office announced Wednesday evening that both had qualified. One that was advertised as a pro-consumer proposal and backed by Uber sought to reduce the amount of money personal injury lawyers could get in car crash settlements, and the other proposed to increase Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ legal liability for sexual misconduct claims. The latter was backed by an attorney advocacy group.

But, the very next day, the groups agreed to kill the proposals.

“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable. This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures,” said a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. Representatives for both sides told the LA Times that they have a week for the agreement, which the LA Times said included Uber agreeing to bolster its safety protocols and the lawyers agreeing to limit medical claims, to be codified into a bill. If that doesn’t happen, both groups will proceed with their ballot measures, the Times reported.




https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/uber-election-ballot-measure-22311299.php

[LogDog75]

1. During the California primary, Uber ran a lot of ads

Uber was one of the main contributors to ads attacking trial lawyers by showing people who had been take advantage of by their lawyers implying all lawyers did this. The thing about these ads was there were no propositions on the ballot that would affect Uber. They were running the ads in anticipation of the the general election to build support for their ballot initiative. One of the things the ads did was to define their opponents, the trial lawyers, long before the voters knew about the proposition.

In April, I did an internet search on the proponents and saw who they were and what they were up to. They wanted to cap the amount of damages a customer could receive if they were injured in an accident in one of their cars. I was immediately against the proposition because anyone injured as a result of the company's negligence or fault should be fully compensated for their injuries. A cap would limit those costs especially if the person was injured and would require years of care and they'd run out of money with a cap on damages.