Group Alleges Uber Seeks "License To Kill" With Robotaxis | Carscoops

      A ballot initiative is generating discussion in California, but the facts seem to be getting overlooked.

      17 hours ago

      by Michael Gauthier

      Uber is facing a campaign accusing it of seeking a “license to kill.”

      The ballot proposal is perceived as beneficial for future autonomous vehicles.

      A nonprofit organization claims it restricts attorney fees and medical compensations.

      Many Americans are apprehensive about autonomous vehicles, and a new campaign is likely to heighten those concerns. Targeting California citizens, it asserts that Uber desires a “license to kill” with its robotaxis.

      With that dramatic approach, Consumer Watchdog has initiated a campaign against ballot initiative 25-0022A1, known as the Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act.

      While the title isn’t easy to remember, the initiative points out that thousands of Californians suffer injuries in car accidents annually, and often these victims are represented by lawyers who prioritize their own profits over their clients’ welfare.

      It particularly criticizes “billboard attorneys” and personal injury lawyers who “spend millions targeting low-income automobile accident victims, promoting large payouts that rarely occur."

      Though the initiative is quite detailed, its objective is to ensure that “automobile accident victims shall retain at least 75 percent of the total amount recovered in actions arising out of automobile accidents” and to eliminate “financial incentives for attorneys to inflate the medical expenses of automobile accident victims through excessive billing and unnecessary medical care.”

      Additionally, it aims to ban “self-dealing financial arrangements between attorneys and healthcare providers relating to automobile accident victims” and to safeguard whistleblowers who disclose such practices.

      Advocacy Group Accuses Uber of Exploiting Reform

      While this sounds promising, the nonprofit contends that Uber is backing the ballot measure to “limit innocent accident victims’ rights to medical recovery and representation” as it “plans to revive its dangerous self-driving robotaxi.”

      This claim is misleading, as Uber is not reintroducing the same robotaxi involved in a fatal crash in 2018. In fact, a partnership between Lucid, Nuro, and Uber will create a next-generation robotaxi, which will reportedly be built on a specially modified Gravity SUV.

      The new vehicle will be fitted with various cameras and sensors connected to the Nuro Driver Level 4 autonomous driving system, making it fundamentally different.

      Consumer Watchdog overlooks this detail, as its video labels Uber a “dangerous company” and includes footage of the fatal incident, failing to mention that there was a safety driver present who should have been attentive.

      “A Cynical Ploy To Take Away Californians’ Legal Rights”

      Adding to the deception, the video features an animated segment of a car operating autonomously at speeds up to 104 mph (167 km/h). Clearly, robotaxis are not designed to travel at those speeds, and many have only recently been permitted on city streets.

      Nonetheless, Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court stated, “This initiative is a cynical ploy to strip Californians of their legal rights just as Uber will be deploying hazardous new technology on California roads.” He further asserted, “Uber is a reckless company, and its proposed ballot measure will enable it to avoid accountability for injuries its robotaxis might cause.”

      The controversy revolves around three main points highlighted in a brief produced by the Attorney General of California. It states that the proposal would “increase victims’ burden of proof and limit the amounts they may recover” for specific medical costs. It would also “forbid certain financial relationships between attorneys and medical providers.”

      Importantly, attorney fees for plaintiffs would decrease from the usual 30-33% to 25% of the monetary recovery, benefiting the victims over their lawyers.

      Challenging The Proposed Changes

      This significantly deviates from claims asserting that the initiative will remove “Californians’ right to hold Uber, or any reckless driver, accountable for injuries they cause.” Previously, the group argued that capping contingency fees “makes it financially unfeasible for attorneys to take on many cases – particularly those with modest damages or complex liability.”

      Consumer Watchdog also raised concerns about medical treatment changes, stating, “The initiative limits medical compensation based not on necessary treatment, but on narrow Medicare/Medi-Cal reimbursement rates or the actual payments made by insurers – even if the injured party still owes more under a lien or does not receive any insurance support.”

      It is uncertain how the situation will develop, but the initiative reportedly requires 546,650 valid signatures to be considered for the ballot next year.