SB 623 Explained: What California's Uber Deal Means for Lien-Based Care

SB 623 covers claims against a network company, its subsidiary or an app-based driver, for crashes on or after January 1, 2027, in which the injured person was treated by a lien-based provider.¹ It does not reach medical services, liens or receivables from before that date.

The law borrows its definitions from Business and Professions Code section 7463, the section Proposition 22 created for app-based work. There, a "network company" is either a transportation network company or a delivery network company, and an "app-based driver" includes ride-hail drivers and delivery couriers who meet Proposition 22's independent-contractor conditions.² Most news coverage calls SB 623 a rideshare law. Read with section 7463, its text also reaches claims against app-based delivery companies and their couriers.

A crash in which no network company or app-based driver is a defendant falls outside the law. Courts have not yet applied section 3333.9, so questions such as how it treats a case with several defendants are still open.

For a covered claim, the most a plaintiff can recover for any service from a lien-based provider is the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.'s billed charges, or a comparable commercial database, for the same or similar service in the area at the time it was provided.¹ The plaintiff also cannot recover more than the provider actually billed.

• The excess is void. Any amount billed above the cap is unenforceable. No person or entity may collect it, from the patient or anyone else, or seek reimbursement, indemnity or subrogation for it.
• A narrow exception. Before trial, the plaintiff can ask the court to allow more. The court may do so only on clear and convincing evidence, supported by expert testimony, that the service was exceptionally rare or highly specialized and no comparable provider was available. If the court denies the motion, the side that opposed it recovers its attorney's fees and costs.
• What the jury hears. No party may show the jury any bill, lien amount or claimed value above the cap, or mention the cap itself. Bills below the cap remain admissible.
• A ceiling, not a guarantee. The cap does not entitle anyone to that amount. Defendants can still challenge reasonableness, medical necessity, coding and causation.
• The collateral source rule stays. The section says so expressly.

Medical-expense damages are recoverable only with itemized bills that identify each service at the procedure-code level, using CPT, HCPCS, ICD or successor coding systems.¹ A bill that lists one lump sum per visit does not meet this rule.

If a defendant sends written notice identifying a billing deficiency, the provider or the party offering the bill has 30 days to cure, supplement or clarify it. Clear, coded records also support the medical-legal reports that attorneys rely on to prove causation and need for care.

If a lien or receivable is sold, assigned, financed or factored, recovery is capped at what the buyer paid for it, and never more than the 70th percentile cap.¹ The law does not ban lien sales. It limits what a sold lien can recover and requires disclosure.

• The agreement and its price, including contingent, deferred or recourse payments, must be disclosed to the plaintiff, the defendant, both sides' attorneys and any insurer within 30 days of the transaction, and in every case before settlement or distribution.
• An undisclosed sale or transfer cannot be asserted against the defendant, the insurer, a settlement, a judgment or settlement proceeds.
• Any deal that shifts the risk of non-collection to a third party counts as an assignment, whether it is called a sale, loan, factoring arrangement or servicing agreement.

SB 623 makes the financial and referral ties between lien-based providers and plaintiffs' attorneys discoverable, and it bans several attorney practices outright.¹

Discoverable: the medical liens for the treatment at issue, and any assignment, financing, factoring, referral, ownership, investment, lending or compensation between the provider and an attorney, law firm or affiliated entity. On request, the provider must sign a declaration under penalty of perjury stating whether the attorney or firm referred the plaintiff, and approximately how many patients that attorney or firm referred in the previous 24 months.

Unlawful for plaintiffs' attorneys:

• Referring a contingency-fee client to a provider in which the attorney or an immediate family member has a direct ownership interest
• Fee splitting, kickbacks, rebates or referral compensation tied to the client's lien-based treatment
• Paying bonuses or incentives for referring clients to lien-based providers
• Charging an extra fee for reducing or resolving a medical lien (an attorney may still hire a third party to negotiate reductions, with the client's consent)

Violations can lead to State Bar discipline. Providers have one prohibition of their own: a lien-based provider may not agree to reduce a lien before the services are rendered, and doing so can lead to professional discipline. Our page for attorneys describes how we document and report cases.

SB 623 does not cap attorney fees. Uber's initiative proposed a fee cap, and the final law dropped it.^3,4

• It does not cap pain and suffering or other damages. The section changes existing law only for past medical expenses from lien-based providers, plus its lien, disclosure and referral rules.
• It does not touch health insurance, Medicare, Medi-Cal, ERISA plans, workers' compensation or Hospital Lien Act liens. The definitions exclude them.
• It does not change crashes in which no network company or app-based driver is a defendant.
• The rest of the bill, on driver background checks and rider-driver matching preferences, governs ride-hail companies rather than medical care.

Prepare now: the first covered crashes happen on January 1, 2027, and their bills will be tested under the new rules.

1. At intake, ask whether a rideshare or delivery-app driver was involved in the crash, and record the answer.
2. Look up the FAIR Health 70th percentile for your common CPT codes in your area, and compare it with your fee schedule.
3. Itemize every bill by CPT and ICD code. Retire lump-sum visit billing.
4. Do not agree to any lien reduction before treatment.
5. Record how each patient reached you, because referral sources become discoverable.
6. If you sell or finance receivables, have counsel review those agreements against the 30-day disclosure rule.
7. Ask the attorneys you work with how they plan to handle covered cases.

For the wider picture of how settlements are divided among lienholders, see our guide to California personal injury settlement distribution.

If your crash involved an Uber, Lyft or delivery-app driver, you can still get treatment on a lien. What changes is how much of that bill your case can recover.

• In a covered case, the part of a lien bill above the cap is void, so it cannot be collected from you either.
• Nothing changes for crashes before January 1, 2027, or for crashes with no network company or app-based driver involved.
• Your attorney can explain how the law applies to your case.

Our page on lien-based care explains how treatment on a lien works at our Petaluma clinic.

SB 623 replaced two competing measures that had qualified for the November 2026 ballot.³

In 2025, Uber filed the "Protecting Automobile Accident Victims from Attorney Self-Dealing Act," which would have limited attorney contingency fees in crash cases across California. The Consumer Attorneys of California backed a competing measure that would have increased Uber's liability for sexual misconduct. Both qualified, and each side had raised or allocated more than $75 million.³ The two sides then agreed on SB 623, both measures came off the ballot, and the Governor signed the bill on June 25, 2026. The result is far narrower than Uber's measure, which would have reached every car crash case in the state.⁴

Does SB 623 apply to a crash in 2026?

No. It applies to crashes on or after January 1, 2027, and not to services, liens or receivables from before that date.

Does SB 623 cap attorney fees?

No. The fee cap in Uber's initiative did not make it into the law.

Does SB 623 ban selling medical liens?

No. It caps what a sold or financed lien can recover at the price paid, requires disclosure within 30 days, and makes undisclosed sales unenforceable.

Can a provider bill the patient for the amount above the cap?

No. In a covered case, the amount above the cap is void and unenforceable against anyone, including the patient.

Does SB 623 cover delivery drivers?

Its definitions come from Proposition 22, under which network companies include delivery network companies and app-based drivers include delivery couriers. Courts have not yet ruled on the section, so confirm with counsel how it applies to a specific case.

1. Senate Bill 623 (Umberg), Automobile accidents: civil actions: transportation network companies. Chapter 17, Statutes of 2026, adding Civil Code section 3333.9. Approved by the Governor June 25, 2026. California Legislative Information
2. California Business and Professions Code section 7463, Definitions (added by Proposition 22, 2020). California Legislative Information
3. Sumagaysay L. Newsom signs law that lets Uber, attorneys avoid ballot measure fight. CalMatters. June 25, 2026. calmatters.org
4. Balestrieri PJ, Rich TM, Porte JE, Brahin LC. California Enacts SB 623, Avoids Ballot Fight on Personal Injury Recovery, Rideshare Liability. Holland & Knight Alert. July 7, 2026. hklaw.com