Business
Uber — a target of car crash lawsuits — pushes for law to limit California lawyer fees
The long-simmering fight between some of L.A.’s best-known billboard attorneys and Uber, one of their most frequent targets, is poised to spill out of the courtroom and onto the November ballot.
The ride-share giant is gathering signatures for an initiative that, if passed by voters, would cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases. The company pledges the change will give victims a larger cut of their settlement money, alleging predatory attorneys are inflating medical bills to increase their own profits.
Lawyers claim it will decimate their lucrative niche — car crash lawsuits in the automobile haven that is California — and ultimately leave thousands of people with small or challenging cases unable to sue because they can’t find an attorney.
This fight, lawyers say, is existential.
Attorneys from Sweet James and Jacoby & Meyers — the names and faces of which will be imprinted in the minds of most California drivers — have given almost $1 million to a committee opposing the ballot measure, according to campaign filings. Dozens of other deep-pocketed attorneys have joined, raising an impressive war chest already surpassing $46 million.
“Uber knows darn well what they’ve done,” said Nicholas Rowley, among those leading the opposition. “This law is designed to wipe out ordinary working people’s ability to get representation.”
Attorneys have condemned the fee cap as a Trojan horse meant to trick voters into wrecking the delicate math behind personal injury lawsuits. Currently, personal injury attorneys typically take 33% to 40% of a client’s payout. That is enough, they say, for them to earn a living and risk taking cases on a contingency fee basis — meaning, if they lose, they don’t get paid.
Uber’s proposal would cap attorney fees for car crash cases at 25% and require extra costs — filing fees, depositions, experts — to be calculated before the fee split rather than coming out of the client’s portion.
The two sides have conflicting views of who would be expected to pay for medical fees, which often drain a significant portion of an injured client’s payout. Attorneys said in order to guarantee clients get 75% of the money, lawyers will have to foot the bill for these medical costs, opening the possibility they would walk away with nothing. Uber said the question of who covers medical costs is “not contemplated by the measure” andit expects clients would pay.
The measure would tightly limit what medical expenses can be claimed and curb most damages to rates based on insurance. A doctor-led political action committee opposing the measure has raised more than $4 million, according to campaign finance records, arguing it will prevent Californians from getting treatment.
Uber said in a statement that nothing in the measure prevents car accident victims from securing doctors and lawyers. Instead, the company said, the measure is aimed at tackling a perennial problem in California’s legal system: attorneys pushing car crash victims into expensive surgeries in order to fatten their fees. The only Californians impacted, Uber claims, will be “shady billboard lawyers whose business model relies on abusing auto accident victims for their own personal gain.”
“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard lawyers,” said Adam Blinick, Uber’s head of public policy. “Capping attorney fees, banning kickbacks, and ending inflated medical billing are common-sense reforms that will protect auto accident victims and lower costs, and we’re confident voters will agree.”
Uber has poured fuel on the fire with federal racketeering lawsuits targeting both Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, and Jacob Emrani, two prominent personal injury law offices in Southern California. The lawsuits allege the attorneys had “side agreements” with certain doctors to inflate medical bills for unnecessary procedures to get a larger payout.
In an Instagram post, DTLA called the lawsuit a “calculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation” to suppress legitimate claims. An attorney representing Emrani called it meritless and part of a campaign “to shut the courthouse doors to victims injured by Uber drivers.”
Gearing up for a fight, Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful trial lawyer trade group, is pushing three ballot measures of its own, including one seeking to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver and the other aiming to nullify the fee-capping measure if it passes. Billboards have sprung up across Los Angeles reminding Californians that Uber is the subject of a string of recent New York Times investigations into sexual assault by drivers.
A billboard on West Pico Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles informs passersby of sexual assaults reported to Uber.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
The company said it has invested billions in keeping riders safe and has “done more than any other company to confront” sexual violence.
Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that sponsored some of the billboards and receives funding from trial attorneys, put out a “consumer alert” branding the fee cap as a “license to kill” measure, claiming it would ultimately pave the way for Uber to move forward with robotaxis without worrying about getting sued. Uber said this was “flat-out untrue” and the measure has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles.
The push by Uber comes at a tense point for California’s legal bar. The Times reported this fall on private investors looking to bankroll California sex abuse cases, and separate allegations of fraudulent lawsuits and unethical conduct by Downtown LA Law Group, a firm known for car crash lawsuits that played a prominent role in L.A. County’s $4-billion sex abuse settlement.
DTLA has denied all wrongdoing and said it operates “with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”
Some attorneys worry about how voters will perceive their industry when it’s time to cast ballots.
“I’ll tell you straight up, we could do a better job policing ourselves,” said Rowley, who said he believed the State Bar had historically been weak on California lawyers. “It creates a situation where Uber can do what it’s doing.”
The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group in Los Angeles.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
Calls for reform within California’s legal community have gained momentum in recent months.
Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s interim chief executive officer, called on the State Bar to implement “badly needed ethical reforms” that would make big personal injury cases less profitable for lawyers. Attorney and business advocacy groups have made public pleas to keep private equity out of the state’s legal landscape, worrying it fuels frivolous lawsuits. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly expressed unease.
“Our legal system is meant to provide justice, transparency, and accountability — not a business model that uses survivors of abuse or trauma as a revenue stream,” said a spokesperson for the governor. “California can — and must — hold two truths at the same time: standing unequivocally with survivors and victims, while also demanding integrity within the law firms and other businesses that work within our legal system.”
Californians unhappy with problem law firms already have a way to ding them without the ballot measure, Uber’s opponents argue. A new law went into effect Jan. 1 giving private citizens the right to sue an attorney for unethical practices. Many such practices are already illegal but seldom prosecuted. That includes advertising containing false promises and using third parties to solicit clients.
The Times reported this fall that nine plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group were paid by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls, four of whom said they were told to make up claims. The firm has denied paying anyone to file lawsuits.
“This is exactly why we wrote the bill,” said Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), a lawyer who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to The Times Dec. 31 story on the firm. “I expect that someone will take it upon themselves to actually enforce that law.”
Business
What soaring gas prices mean for California’s EV market
It has been a bumpy road for the electric vehicle market as declining federal support and plateauing public interest have eaten away at sales.
But EV sellers could soon receive a boost from an unexpected source: The war in Iran is pushing up gas prices.
As Americans look to save money at the pump, more will consider switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle. Average gas prices in the U.S. have risen nearly 17% since Feb. 28 to reach $3.48 per gallon. In California, the average is $5.20 per gallon.
Electric vehicles are pricier than gasoline-powered cars and charging them isn’t cheap with current electricity prices, but sky-high gas prices can tip the scales for consumers deciding which kind of vehicle to buy next.
“We probably will see an uptick in EV adoption and particularly hybrid adoption” if gas prices stay high, said Sam Abuelsamid, an auto analyst at Telemetry Agency. “The last time we had oil prices top $100 per barrel was early 2022 and that’s when we saw EV sales really start to pick up in the U.S.”
In a 2022 AAA survey, 77% of respondents said saving money on gas was their primary motivator for purchasing an electric vehicle. That year, 25% of survey respondents said they were likely or very likely to purchase an EV.
As oil prices cooled, the number fell to16% in 2025.
In California, annual sales of new light-duty zero-emission vehicles jumped 43% in 2022, according to the state’s Energy Commission. The market share of zero-emission vehicles among all light-duty vehicles sold rose from 12% in 2021 to 19% in 2022.
“Prior to 2022, we didn’t really have EVs available when we had oil price shocks,” Abuelsamid said. “But every time we did, it coincided with a move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.”
Dealers are anticipating a windfall.
Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn., predicted enthusiasm for EVs will rebound across California if oil prices don’t come down.
“If prior gasoline price spikes are any indication, you tend to see interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles,” he said.
Rising gas prices could be a lifeline for EV makers at a time when federal support for green cars has been declining.
Under President Trump, a federal $7,500 tax incentive for new electric vehicles was eliminated in September, along with a $4,000 incentive for used electric vehicles.
In California, the zero-emission vehicle share of the total new-vehicle market was 22% through the first 10 months of 2025, then dropped sharply to 12% in the last two months of the year, according to the California Auto Outlook.
Meanwhile Tesla, the most popular EV brand in the country, has grappled with an implosion of its reputation with some consumers after its chief executive, Elon Musk, became one of Trump’s most vocal supporters and helped run the controversial Department of Government Efficiency.
Over the last several months, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have pared back EV ambitions.
Other automakers, including Nissan, announced plans to stop producing their more affordable electric models.
The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal fuel economy standards and revoked California’s permission to implement a ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035.
David Reichmuth, a researcher with the Clean Transportation program in the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the shift in production plans will affect EV availability, even if demand surges.
That could keep people from switching to cleaner vehicles regardless of higher gas prices.
“This is a transition that we need to make for both public health and to try to slow the damage from global warming, whether or not the price of gasoline is $3 or $5 or $6 a gallon,” he said.
According to Cox Automotive, new EV sales nationally were down 41% in November from a year earlier. Used EV sales were down 14% year over year that month.
To be sure, oil prices can fluctuate wildly in times of uncertainty. It will take time for consumers to decide on new purchases.
Brian Kim, who manages used car sales at Ford of Downtown LA, said he has yet to see a jump in the number of people interested in EVs, hybrids or more fuel-efficient gas-powered engines.
Still, if the price at the pump stays stuck above its current level, it could happen soon.
“Once the gas prices hit six [dollars per gallon] or more and people feel it in their pocket, maybe things will start to change,” he said.
Business
Nearly 60 gigawatts of U.S. clean power stalled, trade group finds
A total of 59 gigawatts of U.S. clean energy projects are facing delays at a time when demand for power from AI data centers is surging, according to a trade group study.
Developers are seeing an average delay of 19 months over issues such as long interconnection times, supply constraints and regulatory barriers, the American Clean Power Assn. said in a quarterly market report.
The backlog is happening despite the growing need for power on grids that are being taxed by energy-hungry data centers and increased manufacturing. The Trump administration has implemented a slew of policies to slow the build-out of solar and wind projects, including delaying approvals on federal lands.
The potential energy generation facing delays is the equivalent of 59 traditional nuclear reactors, enough to power more than 44 million homes simultaneously.
“Current policy instability is beginning to impact investor confidence and negatively impact project timelines at a time when demand is surging,” American Clean Power Chief Policy Officer JC Sandberg said in a statement.
Despite the hurdles, developers were able to bring more than 50 gigawatts of wind, solar and batteries online in 2025, accounting for more than 90% of all new power capacity in the U.S., the report found. Clean power purchase agreements declined 36% in 2025 compared with 2024, signaling that the build-out of clean power in the U.S. could be lower in the 2028 to 2030 time period, according to the report.
Chediak writes for Bloomberg.
Business
Feud between Vegas gambler and Paramount exec sparks $150-million fraud lawsuit
The high-stakes feud between Paramount Skydance President Jeff Shell and Las Vegas gambler and self-professed “fixer” Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani spilled into court on Monday.
Cipriani filed a lawsuit against Shell on claims of fraud and eight other counts, alleging that he reneged on an oral agreement to develop an English-language version of a Spanish music show that streams on Roku TV.
He is seeking $150 million in damages.
In the 67-page lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Cipriani claims that in exchange for providing “sophisticated, high-value crisis communications services, entirely without compensation” over 18 months, Shell had agreed to develop the show “Serenata De Las Estrellas,” (Star Serenade), but failed to do so. Cipriani and his wife were to be named as co-executive producers.
“This case arises from the oldest form of fraud: a powerful man took everything a less powerful man had to offer, promised to repay him, lied to him when he asked about it, and then refused to compensate him at all,” states the complaint.
Cipriani — who has producer credits on a 2020 documentary about Vegas, “Money Machine: Behind the Lies,” and the 2015 movie “Wild Card” — intended to make “Serenata” as a “lasting legacy for his mother,” Regina, saying the effort “has been the driving force and the most important thing consuming [Cipriani’s] entire life of almost sixty-five years,” according to the suit.
The show was inspired by a song that the Philadelphia-born Cipriani used to sing to his late mother when he was growing up.
The litigation is the latest twist in a simmering behind-the-scenes scandal that has left much of Hollywood slack-jawed.
For weeks, Cipriani had threatened to file a lawsuit against Shell, with the potential to derail his comeback at Paramount, three years after he lost his job as NBCUniversal’s chief executive over an inappropriate relationship with an underling.
Cipriani’s suit alleges Shell wasdesperate for help in quelling negative stories about him.
It also portrays him as someone who was indiscreet, allegedly sharing sensitive information during the period when the Ellison family, through Skydance Media, was preparing to close its deal to acquire Paramount and then was actively pursuing Warner Bros. Discovery to add to its growing entertainment and media empire.
The eventual rift between the unlikely pair began in August 2024. Patty Glaser, the high-powered entertainment litigator, convened a meeting between the two men.
During the meeting with Shell, the executive expressed to Cipriani his concern that emails and texts between him and Hadley Gamble, the CNBC anchor Shell had been involved with, would come out, saying “that would absolutely destroy me,” according to the suit.
Cipriani claims in his lawsuit Shell was facing “catastrophic personal exposure arising from his conduct toward yet another woman in the media industry,” similar to what had prompted his ouster from NBCUniversal and that he “solicited” his “crisis communications services.”
According to the suit, Cipriani was in a position to help him, having engaged in a “longstanding practice of exposing misconduct in the entertainment and media industries.”
Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani in Amazon Prime Video’s 2025 series “Cocaine Quarterback.”
(Courtesy of Prime)
A high-rolling blackjack player, Cipriani’s colorful résumé includes aiding the FBI in the arrest and conviction of USC athlete-turned global drug kingpin Owen Hanson, who was sentenced to 21 years in federal prison, and filing a RICO suit against Resorts World Las Vegas.
Leveraging his “unique media relationships and industry influence,” Cipriani said in his complaint that he provided Shell with “ongoing threat-monitoring and intelligence services,” and “took proactive steps to suppress, redirect, or neutralize” negative coverage against Shell before publication.
Cipriani said Shell expressed “effusive gratitude” to him after he planted a story about another entertainment industry figure “in order to divert media attention” away from Shell. “Thank you thank you thank you,” Shell wrote in a text to Cipriani, according to the lawsuit, which included a copy of the text.
During tense negotiations over Paramount’s streaming rights for the highly successful “South Park” franchise last summer, Shell allegedly asked to talk to Cipriani about the matter. Cipriani then “orchestrat[ed] the placement of a highly favorable news article,” that was “devastating to Shell’s and Paramount’s adversaries in the dispute,” the suit states.
After a story published in a Hollywood trade, Cipriani wrote to Shell on WhatsApp, “I’m the one that put the article out for you!!!” and “I didn’t want to tell you till it hit so you have plausible deniability.”
According to a message cited in the lawsuit, Shell responded, “I love you!!!! …Thank you Rj,” adding “I owe you dinner at least!”
Despite those boasts, Paramount ultimately paid “South Park” creators millions more than Skydance had intended. To remove obstacles from Skydance’s path to buy Paramount, the media company agreed to two blockbuster deals that include paying the “South Park” production company more than $1.25 billion to continue the cartoon — making it one of the richest deals in television history.
During the course of their relationship, Cipriani further alleges that Shell alerted him to a then-pending $7.7-billion Paramount deal for the rights to UFC fights, while Netflix “believed” it had a “handshake deal” for the same rights, according to the suit.
Cipriani disclosed in his lawsuit that he filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the disclosure of material information, claiming that Shell told him that not even UFC President Dana White knew of the transaction. In a WhatsApp message cited in the lawsuit, Shell told Cipriani that the deal was “very hush, hush until we sign.”
While the gambler continued to provide his services to Shell gratis, their relationship began to sour.
Cipriani became enraged that Shell did not uphold his end of the alleged deal to help him with the TV show, viewing it as a slap to him and his mother.
In February, the pair met to resolve their growing dispute. According to the lawsuit, also in attendance was an unidentified entertainment attorney who had represented both men in separate matters.
Patty Glaser has been widely reported as having represented Shell and Cipriani. She introduced them in summer 2024, as The Times reported Saturday.
“We were presented with a draft complaint riddled with clear errors of fact and law,” Glaser said in a statement last week. “We will strongly respond.”
The February meeting did not go well.
Shell not only “refused to compensate” Cipriani, but also told him that he could not “assist” him “in obtaining a television show or other entertainment industry opportunity.”
Cipriani further alleged in his lawsuit that during their “failed summit,” Shell revealed his “disdain” for David Zaslav, the Warner Bros. Discovery CEO, and disclosed that Paramount intended to “sweeten” its pending hostile offer for the studio to fend off Netflix prior to announcing its intention to do so publicly.
After the meeting, Cipriani stated in his complaint that Shell’s attorney privately offered Cipriani a “$150,000 personal loan” to resolve the dispute.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Pennsylvania5 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Detroit, MI5 days agoU.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year
-
Miami, FL6 days agoCity of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
-
Sports6 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death