Breaking Barriers to Justice
SB 623: The New Rules for Rideshare Litigation By Saveena Takhar
Senate Bill 623 (Umberg) is the result of a negotiated compromise between Consumer Attorneys of California and Uber to avoid two competing statewide ballot initiatives while creating a new framework governing medical liens, attorney ethics, and Transportation Network Company (TNC) safety. The bill applies only to claims arising from automobile accidents involving TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, where the plaintiff receives treatment from a lien-based medical provider for accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027. In this context, a lien-based provider is defined as one who renders treatment pursuant to an agreement where payment is contingent upon the outcome of a case. Importantly, SB 623 does not change the existing law for either future medical expenses or for past medical bills paid by health insurance. In this limited area, SB 623 enacts a statutory framework detailing how medical damages will be proven, how lien-based treatment is documented, and addresses conflicts of interest between attorneys and medical providers. The bill preserves the ability of injured rideshare passengers to obtain medical treatment on a lien – a necessity for uninsured or underinsured Californians who otherwise may have no access to care.
One of the most highlighted provisions in SB 623 is the new standard for recovery of past medical expenses for lien-based treatment. In TNC cases, a plaintiff generally may not recover more than the 70th percentile of FAIR Health billed charges – or a comparable commercially recognized billed-charge database – for the same medical service in the applicable geographic area. Any amount billed above that amount is rendered void and unenforceable, meaning neither the provider nor any subsequent holder of the lien may collect the excess from the plaintiff, defendant, insurer, or settlement proceeds. Importantly, the legislation does not establish the FAIR Health amount as an automatic measure of damages. Defendants remain free to argue that a lower amount is reasonable, while plaintiffs must still prove the necessity and reasonableness of their medical treatment under existing law. Likewise, plaintiffs cannot recover more than the amount actually billed by the provider. Recognizing that some injuries require specialized treatment unavailable in the ordinary marketplace, SB 623 creates a narrow exception to the FAIR Health limitation. Before trial, a plaintiff may file a motion seeking authorization to recover more than the statutory cap by demonstrating, through clear and convincing evidence supported by expert testimony, that the treatment involved exceptionally rare or highly specialized services for which no reasonably comparable provider was available. However, unsuccessful motions carry consequences: if the court denies the request, the opposing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in opposing the motion.
Saveena Takhar is CAOC’s General Counsel. Joining the legislative team in 2013, she specializes in consumer protection, civil procedure, and privacy rights. She worked to enact first-in-the-nation consumer protections for data breaches within the landmark California Consumer Privacy Act. Other key legislation includes ensuring equal damages regardless of race and a variety of civil procedure efficiencies.
stakhar@caoc.org
12
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs