John Roach, Esq. | July 11, 2026 | California Law \ Car Accidents
SB 623: California’s New Rideshare Accident Law Explained by a San Francisco Uber & Lyft Lawyer
On June 25, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 623 — the Fair Medical Billing & Rideshare Safety Act — into law as Chapter 17 of the Statutes of 2026. If you ride in, drive for, or share the road with Uber and Lyft vehicles in California, this law will eventually touch your rights after a crash. It changes how medical damages are calculated in certain rideshare injury cases, caps what can be recovered when a medical lien has been sold, adds new driver safety requirements, and restricts financial relationships between attorneys and medical providers. As an Uber and Lyft accident lawyer handling these cases in San Francisco, I want to explain what SB 623 actually says, what it does not say, and — most importantly — when it starts to matter for your case. There is already confusion spreading about this law, and some of what people are repeating is simply wrong.
The Ballot Fight Behind SB 623
SB 623 did not come out of an ordinary legislative process. Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California had each qualified competing initiatives for the November 2026 ballot. Uber’s measure would have capped attorney contingency fees in auto accident cases and limited medical-expense recoveries statewide. The consumer attorneys’ measure would have classified rideshare companies as common carriers with heightened duties and expanded their liability for sexual assaults against passengers. Rather than spend a combined nine figures fighting it out at the ballot box, the two sides negotiated. SB 623 is the compromise: both organizations withdrew their initiatives once the Governor signed it. Understanding that origin explains the law’s shape — it is narrower than what either side originally proposed.
What SB 623 Does
The law has two halves: medical lien reform for rideshare injury cases, and new rideshare safety requirements. In plain terms:
- It applies only to rideshare claims. The new lien rules, in new Civil Code section 3333.9, govern civil claims and arbitrations against a transportation network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver, arising from automobile accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027, where the injured person received treatment from a lien-based medical provider. By its own terms, the section does not apply to medical services rendered, liens created, or receivables assigned before January 1, 2027.
- It caps recoverable lien-based medical damages. For covered claims, recovery for medical expenses from lien-based providers cannot exceed the 70th percentile of FAIR Health’s billed charges (or a comparable commercially recognized database) for the same or similar service in the geographic area at the time of treatment — and evidence exceeding the recoverable amount is barred from introduction, subject to the statute’s specified exceptions.
- It caps recovery when a lien has been sold. If a medical lien, receivable, or right to payment has been sold or otherwise transferred, the maximum recoverable medical expense is tied to the price actually paid for it — not the face value of the bill. The statute regulates lien sales through this recovery cap rather than prohibiting them: sale agreements and the consideration paid become discoverable, and an undisclosed sale or transfer cannot be asserted against a defendant, insurer, or the settlement proceeds. For covered cases, this legislatively supersedes the rule of Moore v. Mercer (2016), where the court held that the discounted price a factoring company paid for a lien did not cap the plaintiff’s recovery of the reasonable value of the care.
- It restricts referral conflicts. A contingency-fee attorney may not refer a client to a healthcare provider in which the attorney or an immediate family member holds a direct ownership interest, and fee-splitting and paid-referral arrangements tied to lien-based treatment are unlawful. Lien financial relationships and attorney referral information become discoverable.
- It adds rideshare safety requirements. Stricter criminal background checks before a driver is activated and annually thereafter, an expanded list of disqualifying offenses, and the ability for women riders and drivers to request same-gender matching through the app.
What SB 623 Does Not Do
This is where the public confusion lives, so let me be direct:
- It does not cap attorney contingency fees. A fee cap was the centerpiece of Uber’s withdrawn ballot initiative. It was dropped in the compromise. SB 623 contains no limit on contingency fees.
- It does not apply to ordinary car accidents. A collision with no rideshare connection is completely untouched. Existing California law — including the Howell v. Hamilton Meats framework for past medical damages — continues to govern every non-rideshare case.
- It does not limit non-economic damages, lost income, or future medical needs. The cap reaches one category only: past medical damages for lien-based treatment in covered rideshare claims. Pain and suffering, lost earnings, and future care are not capped.
- It does not reduce rideshare insurance coverage. The $1 million commercial liability coverage that applies while a driver is on an accepted trip under existing California law is unchanged.
- It is not in effect for today’s crashes. The lien provisions apply to accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027.
Injured in a Rideshare Crash Now vs. After January 1, 2027
If your rideshare accident happened before January 1, 2027: SB 623’s lien provisions do not apply to your claim. Your medical damages are governed by existing law, and lien-based treatment is valued under the current framework. Nothing about the new statute reduces what you can pursue for a 2026 crash.
If your rideshare accident happens on or after January 1, 2027: If you were treated by lien-based providers, the new benchmarking cap and disclosure rules will shape how your past medical damages are documented and valued. That makes early decisions — where you treat, how the liens are structured, how the billing is documented against the regional benchmark — more consequential than ever. It also makes one thing clear: rideshare cases will reward lawyers who understand the new framework, because the insurance carriers certainly will.
Either way, the injuries in these cases are the same serious injuries I have handled since 2009 — traumatic brain injury from a high-speed impact, a rear-end collision while stopped in traffic with a rideshare vehicle behind you, or a passenger hurt when a driver rushing between fares misjudges an intersection.
What This Means for Drivers, Passengers, and Everyone They Hit
SB 623 covers claims against the rideshare company, its subsidiary, or the app-based driver. That sweeps in more people than most headlines suggest: passengers hurt in a crash, other motorists struck by a rideshare vehicle, pedestrians, and delivery cyclists sharing streets with app-based drivers. The safety provisions cut the other direction — annual background checks and expanded disqualifying offenses are protections for riders, and the same-gender matching option responds directly to years of assault litigation against the platforms.
For San Francisco’s large community of Spanish-speaking rideshare and delivery drivers, I will say plainly: your rights after a crash do not depend on your immigration status, and California law protects that principle. I explain every case — including how SB 623 affects it — directly in Spanish, without a third-party interpreter, as part of bilingual representation in English and Spanish. Spanish-speaking clients can start on my abogado de accidentes de Uber y Lyft page.
Why Talk to a Rideshare Accident Lawyer About SB 623
New statutes create arguments, and insurance carriers will test every one of them — including against people the law does not actually cover. I expect adjusters to invoke SB 623 in cases where it does not apply, to treat the 70th-percentile benchmark as a ceiling in cases where a petition for more is warranted, and to lean on the confusion between rideshare and ordinary crashes. A trial-tested attorney practicing since 2009 reads the statute, not the adjuster’s version of it. I provide rideshare accident representation alongside the car accident cases I handle across the city, with $25 million+ recovered for Bay Area clients — and every case handled personally, on contingency, with nothing owed unless we recover.
Questions About a Rideshare Crash? Talk to a San Francisco Lawyer for Free
If you were hurt in an Uber or Lyft accident — as a passenger, another driver, a pedestrian, or a cyclist — and you want straight answers about how SB 623 affects your claim, call (415) 851-4557 or schedule a free case review as a San Francisco car accident lawyer who has already read the new law so you don’t have to. Se habla español — consulta gratuita en español.
Frequently Asked Questions
SB 623, the Fair Medical Billing & Rideshare Safety Act, was signed June 25, 2026. It caps recoverable past medical damages for lien-based treatment in rideshare accident cases, caps recovery on sold liens at the price actually paid for them, restricts attorney-provider referral conflicts, and adds annual driver background checks and same-gender matching options for rideshare platforms.
The medical lien provisions apply to rideshare accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027. Crashes before that date are governed by existing California law.
No. A contingency fee cap was part of Uber’s withdrawn ballot initiative, but it was dropped in the negotiated compromise. SB 623 does not limit attorney contingency fees.
No. The law’s lien provisions apply only to claims involving a transportation network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver. An ordinary collision with no rideshare connection is unaffected.
No. The commercial insurance coverage that applies during rideshare trips under existing California law is unchanged. SB 623 affects how certain lien-based medical damages are valued, not the insurance available.
A lien-based provider treats an injured person now in exchange for payment from the future settlement or judgment, rather than billing health insurance up front. SB 623 benchmarks what can be recovered for that treatment in covered rideshare cases and, where a lien has been sold, caps recovery at the price actually paid for it.
Both sides had qualified competing initiatives for the November 2026 ballot — Uber’s to cap attorney fees and limit medical recoveries, the consumer attorneys’ to expand rideshare liability for passenger assaults. SB 623 was the negotiated compromise that let both withdraw their measures and avoid a costly campaign.