A multi-million-dollar ballot initiative in Nevada reveals Uber’s ambitious strategy to transform civil litigation, but not through courtroom victories. The ride-sharing giant is attempting to alter the economic framework that allows consumers to pursue legal claims against large corporations.
When you book an Uber, the app shows you the fare upfront—but in Nevada, the company is orchestrating a hidden surcharge: the potential surrender of your legal rights.
The ride-sharing giant recently invested $5 million into a political action committee (PAC) called Nevadans for Fair Recovery—created and funded entirely by Uber.[1][2][3][4] The goal? To pass the strictest limit on lawyer fees nationwide, a move that could dramatically change who can afford to sue large corporations like Uber.
Uber’s strategy is framed by them as a consumer-friendly proposal: capping attorney fees at 20% of any settlement or judgment will put more money back into plaintiffs’ pockets.[1][2][3][4] But beneath the surface lies a sophisticated bait-and-switch attempt to transform Nevada’s legal structure to protect corporate interests—all while potentially limiting access to justice by consumers.
But how?
Nevada lawyers typically take 33-40% of any settlement or judgment through contingency fees—an arrangement that allows people who can’t afford hourly legal rates to pursue justice by paying their attorneys only if they win.[1][4] By slashing these fees to 20%, Uber’s initiative would make it financially impractical for lawyers to take on complex cases that require substantial upfront investment.
The reality is that serious cases—from sexual assault to catastrophic injuries—can require lawyers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on things like expert witnesses and investigations before ever seeing a courtroom. Under a 20% fee cap, these cases could become too expensive for lawyers to pursue, leaving victims without legal representation against powerful companies.
Let’s focus on a hypothetical complex sexual assault case against a major corporation. These cases could require extensive psychological expertise, with trauma specialists potentially charging hundreds of dollars per hour for evaluation, testimony preparation, and court appearances. Multiple expert witnesses—such as forensic psychologists who can document emotional trauma and security experts who evaluate corporate screening practices—can also be necessary.
Even before reaching a courtroom, the potential costs of proper psychological evaluation, expert depositions, and comprehensive documentation could easily exceed $100,000. Under current contingency fee caps, attorneys can justify this substantial investment knowing they might recover 33-40% of a settlement or verdict. Under Uber’s proposed 20% cap, a case requiring $100,000 in upfront costs would need to yield at least $500,000 in damages for a law firm to break even—and that’s before accounting for staff time, administrative costs, and the inherent risk of unsuccessful litigation, in which case the attorneys never get reimbursed for the litigation expenses.
Attorneys who represent on a contingency basis hedge the risk that they will not be reimbursed the expenses of litigation in cases that are not successful with the expectation of recovering a more significant percentage in those that are. Lowering the fee contingency cap would result in many attorneys not being willing or even able to assume the risks of the contingency fee representation. That would mean that more consumers would only have the alternative of engaging attorneys who require payment of hourly fees and/or legal expenses while the litigation is ongoing, something most consumers cannot afford.
Despite the truth, the public has largely embraced Uber’s version of the story. According to the PAC’s own polling, 86% of Nevada residents think lawyers take too much of their clients’ money—a view that misses the deeper implications of the proposed changes.[1] Business groups like the American Tort Reform Association and Nevada Trucking Association have joined in promoting this consumer-friendly message, saying it protects consumers.[1][4]
But the Nevada Justice Association and a group called Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability strongly oppose it.[1][4] They tried to block the initiative in court this May, arguing it misleads voters about its true impact: 1) It could effectively block people from going to court at all because lawyers couldn’t afford to take their cases, and 2) it could help protect Uber from future lawsuits from customers who blame the company for driver misconduct. While a state judge dismissed the lawsuit, these challengers appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.[1][4]
To get this change on the 2026 ballot, Uber must collect 100,000 signatures while waiting for the Nevada Supreme Court’s interpretation of the campaign in January 2025.[1][5] The fundamental right to access Nevada courts is protected by both state and federal law, and any initiative that effectively bars access faces heightened scrutiny under both state and federal constitutional frameworks.
How a Failed Contingency Fee Cap in California Could Influence the Fight in Nevada
Uber’s Nevada initiative doesn’t exist in isolation. Similar 20% fee cap proposals have emerged in other states like California but failed to make it to the ballot.[4]
In 2021, the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), a business-backed organization, proposed ballot initiatives to cap attorney contingency fees at 20%, but opposition from consumer advocacy groups like Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) was swift.[6]
CAOC launched public awareness campaigns, including advertisements like “Unmasking CJAC,” to expose the corporate interests behind the initiative.[7] Engaging in legislative advocacy, CAOC also collaborated with lawmakers to build a coalition against the measure, emphasizing its potential to restrict consumers’ access to justice. In early 2022, the CJAC appeared to abandon its efforts to print and circulate signature petitions needed for qualification, but it was still pursuing the initiative behind the scenes.[8]
The CJAC continued fundraising $4 million, primarily from auto manufacturers concerned about California’s lemon law (the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act).[9] While contingency fee caps and lemon law reform might appear distinct, both impact consumers’ ability to seek legal remedies. This parallel made the issues natural companions in policy negotiations.
This year, CAOC recognized that both issues centered on preserving consumer access to justice and directly engaged with General Motors—one of CJAC’s top funders. Rather than fighting separate battles over consumer protections, CAOC pursued a comprehensive solution through AB 1755. This compromise bill modernized lemon law procedures while strengthening consumer safeguards. It also led to a broader agreement: CAOC and CJAC would observe a mutual moratorium on filing ballot initiatives against each other’s interests through the 2026 election cycle.[9]
This effectively halted the push for a contingency fee cap, demonstrating how the resolution of one issue (lemon law reform) could influence another (litigation reform) through the interconnected web of stakeholder interests and funding relationships.
Inspiring Opposition Against Uber in Nevada
CAOC’s strategic victory in California could offer a template for opposing Uber’s efforts in Nevada. By identifying and engaging with key funders, understanding their underlying motivations, and crafting compromise solutions that address stakeholder concerns while protecting consumer rights, advocacy groups might replicate CAOC’s success.
The California example demonstrates how seemingly separate issues—like auto lemon laws and contingency fee caps—can become powerful negotiating leverage. Nevada advocates might find similar opportunities by examining Uber’s broader business challenges and regulatory concerns beyond legal fee structures.
This approach becomes particularly relevant as Uber potentially eyes expansion of its fee cap strategy to other states. Just as CAOC’s engagement with auto manufacturers and the CJAC ultimately led to a broader moratorium on adverse ballot initiatives, advocacy groups in Nevada might find opportunities to address Uber’s underlying concerns—whether related to driver screening, insurance costs, or regulatory compliance—in ways that preserve access to justice while addressing legitimate business interests.
The question isn’t just whether Uber’s Nevada initiative will succeed, but whether the playbook developed by CAOC might offer a model for protecting legal rights through sophisticated stakeholder engagement rather than direct confrontation.
How Nevada Law Firms Would Need to Adapt if a 20% Fee Cap Passes
Nevada law firms will need to plan how to survive if such a contingency fee cap passes. Here are some strategies I can see firms pushing for:
- Spreading Risk
- Multi-State Operations: Opening offices in states without fee caps could become crucial. A Nevada firm might establish a presence in California or Arizona, where traditional contingency fees remain viable.
- Practice Area Expansion: Instead of relying solely on personal injury cases, firms will likely branch into employment law, commercial litigation, or other complex practice areas.
- Strategic Partnerships: Firms could form networks to share resources, expertise, and costs across jurisdictions. These alliances help maintain the capability to handle major cases while distributing financial risk.
- Working Smarter
- Enhanced Case Selection: Firms could develop rigorous screening protocols to evaluate potential returns against required investments, focusing resources on cases with the strongest merit and highest potential value.
- Technology Investment: Beyond basic case management, firms could adopt AI-powered analytics for case evaluation, automated document review, and streamlined client communication.
- Expert Network Development: Creating efficient systems to share expert witnesses across firms, potentially through formal networks that reduce individual case costs while maintaining access to crucial testimony.
- Finding New Payment Models
- Hybrid Fee Structures: Combining reduced contingency fees with hourly rates or flat fees for specific case phases, making complex litigation more economically viable under caps.
- Litigation Funding: Partnering with specialized case cost funding companies that provide upfront capital for case costs in exchange for a portion of potential recoveries.
- Cost-Sharing Innovations: Developing formal agreements between firms to split expenses on major cases, particularly those requiring significant expert testimony or complex discovery.
For firms practicing in multiple states, the challenges could multiply. For example, a rush to file cases in neighboring states with more favorable rules could overwhelm those courts.
This reshaping of legal services could create a troubling divide: one system for high-value claims that justify investment under capped fees, another for valid but modest claims that become too expensive.
Looking Ahead: A Corporate Blueprint for Legal Reform
Nevada’s battle over attorney fees represents more than a local policy dispute—it signals an emerging blueprint for how corporations might reshape civil justice systems nationwide. As Uber’s $5 million campaign unfolds, it offers a masterclass on how tech companies can leverage public opinion and legislative processes to transform their legal liability.
The timing is strategic. As tech companies face mounting litigation over consumer protection and safety issues[1][2][4], Uber’s Nevada initiative reveals a sophisticated evolution: reframing defensive legal strategies as consumer protection measures. Rather than simply fighting lawsuits, the company aims to fundamentally alter the economics of bringing cases to court through a seemingly pro-consumer ballot measure.
A 20% contingency fee cap would force law firms to radically rethink their business models, potentially leading to a more selective case acceptance.
What This Means for Civil Justice
The Nevada experiment sits at the intersection of corporate innovation and civil rights, raising a crucial question: How do we balance efficient corporate risk management with meaningful access to justice? Uber’s campaign demonstrates how companies can reshape legal systems through public initiatives while maintaining a consumer-friendly narrative.
As other states watch Nevada’s experiment, the stakes extend beyond ride-sharing disputes to the foundation of how Americans access civil courts. Success here could provide a road map for similar initiatives nationwide, potentially transforming how corporations manage legal risk—and how ordinary citizens pursue justice—for decades.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are our own and should not be considered legal advice.
Sources:
- Silver-Greenburg J. Uber, Facing Sexual-Assault Litigation, Pushes Plan That May Limit Lawsuits. The New York Times. August 12, 2024. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/12/business/uber-nevada-referendum.html
- Mohan P. Why Uber Is Spending Millions on This Obscure Nevada Ballot Proposal. Fast Company. August 21, 2024. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/91175483/why-uber-is-spending-millions-on-this-obscure-nevada-ballot-proposal
- Jamieson D. Uber Spends Millions On Nevada Ballot Initiative That May Slow Sexual Assault Suits. HuffPost. May 1, 2024. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/uber-nevada-ballot-measure-contingency-fees_n_663279bde4b05f96b016dcd4
- Weisenfeld D. Uber Turns Nevada into Contingency Fee-Cap Battleground. Legal Dive. September 25, 2024. Available at: https://www.legaldive.com/news/uber-turns-nevada-into-contingency-fee-cap-battleground-gupta-tort-reform/728094/
- Schultz J. Uber’s ballot effort heads to Nevada Supreme Court. Fox 5 Vegas. December 5, 2024. Available at: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/12/05/ubers-ballot-effort-heads-nevada-supreme-court/
- Serna J., Takhar SK. CAOC Prepares to Battle Initiatives on Attorney’s Fees, PAGA. Advocate Magazine. December 2021. Available at: https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2021-december/caoc-prepares-to-battle-initiatives-on-attorney-s-fees-paga
- Altair Law. Initiative to Cap Contingency Fees Dropped. January 24, 2022. Available at: https://altairlaw.com/Initiative-to-cap-contingency-fees-dropped
- Miller C. Business Group ‘Evaluating’ Future of Its Initiative to Cap Contingency Fees. The Recorder. January 22, 2022. Available at: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/01/22/business-group-evaluating-future-of-its-initiative-to-cap-contingency-fees/?slreturn=20241218140334
- Peverini N., Takhar SK. The Good and the Bad on the Legislative Front. Advocate Magazine. November 2024. Available at: https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2024-november/the-good-and-the-bad-on-the-legislative-front
