California Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative (2026)

California Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative
Election date November 3, 2026
Topic Business regulations and Tort law
Status Cleared for signature gathering
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

The California Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative (#25-0022) may appear on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.

The initiative would amend the California Constitution to:

• require car accident victims to receive at least 75% of the total amount of damages recovered;
• establish standards for the recovery of medical expenses based on Medicare, Medi-Cal, and the national health insurance database; and
• prohibit referral agreements between personal injury law firms and medical care providers.

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the following sections for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot measure.

Expand All

Limit attorney contingency fees

The initiative would amend the California Constitution to limit attorney contingency fees in motor vehicle accident cases to 25%, meaning that the client would retain no less than 75% of the settlement. Attorneys who violate the limit would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be disciplined by the State Bar. It would also authorize clients to seek damages from the attorney if the limit is violated. The limit would apply only to attorneys who represent automobile accident victims. The initiative would require litigation costs to be deducted from the total settlement amount before it is proportioned according to the attorney contingency fee contract.

Limit medical expenses awarded

The initiative would limit the amount awarded for medical expenses for an automobile accident victim to:

• 125% of the applicable fee-for-service Medicare reimbursement rate;
• 170% of the applicable fee-for-service Medi-Cal reimbursement rate if no Medicare rate exists;
• the median or average rates paid by certain commercial insurers if no Medicare or Medi-Cal rate exists; or
• the actual amount that a private insurer would pay instead if the victim had private health insurance.

Increase burden of proof for medical liens in an automobile accident case

The initiative would increase the burden of proof for medical liens in an automobile accident case to clear and convincing evidence — a legal standard that requires the evidence show that the medical treatment received was reasonably necessary. Currently, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, which shows the medical treatment and its cost were more likely to be necessary than not.

Prohibit financial agreements between attorneys and medical providers

The initiative would prohibit attorneys from:

• referring automobile accident victims to a health care provider if the attorney (or their immediate family) has a financial

interest in the provider

• receiving any compensation (such as a rebate or free medical service) for such referrals.

A violation of this provision would be a misdemeanor.

Whistleblower protections

The initiative would prohibit retaliatory measures against an employee who provides or reports information or cooperates in an investigation relating to a prohibited financial agreement between attorneys representing automobile accident victims and medical providers. A whistleblower who alleges discrimination would be authorized to file a complaint with the State Bar or the Labor Commissioner's Office or file a civil suit to seek employment reinstatement, back pay, or punitive damages.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title would have been as follows:

“

Limits automobile accident victims' recovery of medical expenses and fees their attorneys may receive. Initiative constitutional amendment.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:

“

Automobile accident victims often hire an attorney on a contingency basis, meaning the attorney receives an agreed-upon percentage of the victim’s monetary recovery if the victim wins. This measure would: limit the fees such attorneys may receive so victims retain at least 75% of their monetary recovery, but does not restrict fee arrangements for defendants’ attorneys; (for certain medical expenses, increase victims’ burden of proof and limit the amounts they may recover; and prohibit certain financial arrangements between attorneys and medical providers.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

A More Affordable California, Sponsored by Uber is sponsoring the campaign behind the initiative.

Arguments

• Nathan Click, a spokesman for the initiative campaign: "Capping attorney fees, banning kickbacks, stopping inflated medical billing and putting in place whistleblower protections will protect auto-accident victims and have the additional benefit of reducing costs for consumers."
• Protecting American Consumers Together: "By putting clear limits on attorney fees and curbing the kind of self-dealing that has long driven up costs, this initiative represents a step in the right direction for consumers. For too long, billboard lawyers have profited from a system that rewards inflated claims and hidden financial relationships at the expense of real victims."

Opposition

Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opponents

Organizations

• Consumer Attorneys of California
• Consumer Watchdog

Arguments

• Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog: "Voters need to read what they're signing because what they are being asked to sign away is their right to full medical recovery in accidents and the right to contract with an attorney of their choice on a contingency fee basis."
• Nora Freeman Engstrom, law professor and Co-Director of the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford University, and Brianne Holland-Stergar, visiting assistant law professor at the University of Montana School of Law: "Uber wants people to believe that contingency fees encourage attorneys to bring bogus cases. In fact, contingency fees lead attorneys to screen out frivolous cases. After all, the contingency fee’s no-win, no-pay structure means that representing clients with weak or non-meritorious claims is a losing proposition. Second, Uber wants voters to believe that this cap is good for car accident victims. That’s false. Decades of economics research show that price caps — like contingency fee caps — distort allocation and restrict supply."

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2025, and interim reports available as of February 10, 2026. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is March 31, 2026.

A More Affordable California registered in support of the initiative. It reported over $32.5 million in contributions. Alliance Against Corporate Abuse registered in opposition to the initiative. It reported over $46.6 million in contributions. The committee was also registered in support of Initiatives #25-0027, #25-0028, and #25-0029.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$32,500,000.00	$12,758.73	$32,512,758.73	$2,179,390.12	$2,192,148.85
Oppose	$46,674,631.00	$750.00	$46,675,381.00	$50,000.00	$50,750.00
Total	$79,174,631.00	$13,508.73	$79,188,139.73	$2,229,390.12	$2,242,898.85

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
A More Affordable California	$32,500,000.00	$12,758.73	$32,512,758.73	$2,179,390.12	$2,192,148.85
Total	$32,500,000.00	$12,758.73	$32,512,758.73	$2,179,390.12	$2,192,148.85

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Uber	$32,500,000.00	$12,758.73	$32,512,758.73

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the measure.

Committees in opposition to Establish Personal Injury Lawyer Regulations Initiative
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Alliance Against Corporate Abuse	$46,674,631.00	$750.00	$46,675,381.00	$50,000.00	$50,750.00
Total	$46,674,631.00	$750.00	$46,675,381.00	$50,000.00	$50,750.00

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Consumer Attorneys of California Initiative Defense Political Action Committee	$30,000,000.00	$0.00	$30,000,000.00
Nicholas C Rowley	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Shegerian and Associates APC	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team LLP	$950,000.00	$0.00	$950,000.00
Trial Lawyers for Justice	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

Process in California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

An initiated constitutional amendment is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends a state's constitution. Eighteen (18) states allow citizens to initiate constitutional amendments.

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2026 ballot:

• Signatures: 874,641 valid signatures are required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification is June 25, 2026. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of January 12, 2026, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 17, 2026, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

Stages of this ballot initiative

The following is the timeline of the initiative:

• October 3, 2025: The initiative was filed by John Moffatt.
• December 9, 2025: The initiative was cleared for signature gathering.
• February 9, 2026: The secretary of state reported the campaign had collected 25% of the required number of signatures.

See also

2026 ballot measures

View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in California.

• 2026 ballot measures
• California 2026 ballot measures
• California elections, 2026

California ballot measures

Explore California's ballot measure history, including citizen-initiated ballot measures.

• List of California ballot measures
• California Historical Ballot Measures Factbook
• Business regulations ballot measures
• Tort law ballot measures
• California State Legislature

Initiative process

Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.

• Laws governing the initiative process in California
• California Constitution

External links

• Full text of Initiative #25-0022

Footnotes

2026 ballot measures

State ballot measures

States:  • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Indiana • Kansas • Louisiana • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Carolina • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Tennessee • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Topics: Abortion policy •  Affirmative action •  Age limits for officials •  Agriculture policy •  Athletics and sports •  Bail policy •  Ballot measure process •  Ballot measure supermajority requirements •  Bond issues •  Budget stabilization funds •  Business taxes •  Campaign finance •  Citizenship voting requirements •  Civil service •  Collective bargaining •  Constitutional rights •  Crime victims' rights •  Criminal sentencing •  Criminal trials •  Drug crime policy •  Election administration and governance •  English language policy •  Family-related policy •  Firearms policy •  Flood infrastructure and management •  Food and beverage taxes •  Forestry and timber •  Fuel taxes •  Healthcare governance •  Higher education funding •  Higher education governance •  Homestead tax exemptions •  Immigration policy •  Initiative and referendum process •  LGBTQ issues •  Law enforcement officers and departments •  Local government finance and taxes •  Local government officials and elections •  Local government organization •  Marijuana laws •  Minimum wage laws •  Parks, land, and natural area conservation •  Pollution, waste, and recycling policy •  Primary election systems •  Property tax exemptions •  Property taxes •  Psychedelic substances laws •  Public assistance programs •  Public economic investment policy •  Public education funding •  Public education governance •  Public employee retirement funds •  Public health insurance •  Public school teachers and staff •  Race and ethnicity issues •  Ranked-choice voting •  Recall process •  Redistricting policy •  Religion-related policy •  Restricted-use funds •  Salaries of government officials •  Sales taxes •  Sewage and stormwater •  Sex and gender issues •  State constitutional conventions •  State executive branch structure •  State executive powers and duties •  State judicial selection •  State judiciary oversight •  State legislative authority •  State legislative processes and sessions •  State legislative term limits •  Storm infrastructure •  Transportation taxes and fees •  Vehicle and driver regulations •  Voter ID policy •  Voting rights for persons with criminal convictions •  Water irrigation policy

Local ballot measures

 • Alabama • Alaska • Arkansas • California • Illinois • Louisiana • Michigan • Nevada • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Wisconsin

Overviews

 • Scorecard •Tuesday Count •Deadlines •Filed ballot initiatives •Potential ballot measures •Polls •Campaign finance •Signature costs •Readability