The Nevada Supreme Court has struck down Uber’s proposed ballot initiative aimed at capping lawyer contingency fees in civil cases to 20% of recoveries, calling the language “misleading and confusing.”
The court’s unanimous decision highlighted uncertainties in the initiative, including whether it would apply to medical malpractice cases or legal matters involving the state itself.
Critics of the proposal, including a group of sexual assault survivors who have filed lawsuits against Uber, celebrated the ruling. Their attorney called the initiative a “cynical scheme to sidestep accountability” for the company’s alleged failures to protect passengers.
Uber, which denies wrongdoing in sexual assault cases, did not immediately comment on the ruling. The company had argued that the fee cap would protect consumers from excessive legal costs.
The initiative, had it moved forward, would have created the most restrictive fee cap in the United States, surpassing limits in states like Oklahoma (50%) and Michigan (33%). Opponents contended that such caps could discourage lawyers from taking on cases, effectively denying justice to victims.
While the decision halts the current effort, proponents of the cap vowed to press on, promising to educate voters on their perspective. Whether this initiative or a similar one resurfaces remains to be seen.
The ruling underscores the ongoing clash between corporate accountability and legal access, a debate that continues to play out in courtrooms nationwide.
