Uber is fighting several major lawsuits in California at once. The state is pursuing a wage theft case over years of alleged driver misclassification that is heading toward a 2026 trial, a driver advocacy group filed a new suit in April 2026 claiming Uber is violating the Proposition 22 protections it promised drivers, and Uber itself has sued a group of Los Angeles personal injury lawyers under federal racketeering law. A separate fight is also playing out on the November 2026 ballot. Here is where each of the active Uber lawsuits in California stands.
The State Wage Theft Case Headed to Trial in 2026
The largest active matter is a coordinated set of claims by state and local officials alleging Uber willfully misclassified its drivers as independent contractors before Proposition 22 took effect, and owes them back wages, expense reimbursements, liquidated damages, and civil penalties.
California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower first sued Uber and Lyft in August 2020. Those cases have since been consolidated in San Francisco Superior Court with parallel claims brought by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, and claims under the Private Attorneys General Act.1CalMatters. Uber, Lyft Could Owe California Gig Workers Billions of Dollars in Wage Theft Case
The claims run from roughly April 2017 through December 15, 2020, the point at which Prop 22 took over as the law governing driver classification.2California DIR. Lawsuits Against Uber and Lyft Drivers say they were denied overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and mileage reimbursement during those years. Rideshare Drivers United estimates the roughly 5,000 drivers who filed individual claims are owed at least $1.3 billion, and that exposure could reach tens of billions if all 250,000 potentially eligible drivers were covered.1CalMatters. Uber, Lyft Could Owe California Gig Workers Billions of Dollars in Wage Theft Case
Uber and Lyft spent years trying to push the state’s claims into private arbitration, arguing drivers’ arbitration agreements barred government enforcement. That effort collapsed. The California Court of Appeal ruled in 2023 that state agencies enforce the law on their own authority and are not bound by employer-driver arbitration clauses, the California Supreme Court let that ruling stand, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on October 7, 2024.3KQED. Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Labor Case Won’t Be Heard by Supreme Court The litigation stay was lifted on July 2, 2024.
The parties entered closed-door mediation in spring 2025, with Uber’s sessions scheduled for late March and Lyft’s for April 8. No settlement has been announced.4Los Angeles Times. California in Settlement Talks With Uber, Lyft Over Wage Theft Claims Discovery is underway, and a trial is expected in 2026 if no deal is reached.2California DIR. Lawsuits Against Uber and Lyft
The April 2026 Lawsuit Over Prop 22 Compliance
On April 20, 2026, Rideshare Drivers United filed a new suit against Uber in San Francisco Superior Court. The theory is novel: rather than attacking Prop 22 itself, the group argues Uber has failed to deliver the protections Prop 22 requires in exchange for the right to treat drivers as independent contractors, and should therefore lose that right. The group is represented by attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan.5U.S. News. Rideshare Drivers Sue Uber Over Being Kicked Off App in New Challenge to California Law
The complaint raises three main allegations:
- Prop 22 requires companies to provide an appeals process when a driver’s contract is terminated. The suit claims Uber’s system relies on automated chatbots and scripted agents without authority to resolve cases.6CalMatters. Uber Proposition 22 Lawsuit
- Prop 22 guarantees drivers a minimum of 120% of the applicable minimum wage for engaged time, but the suit alleges Uber does not give drivers enough information to verify they are actually receiving it.5U.S. News. Rideshare Drivers Sue Uber Over Being Kicked Off App in New Challenge to California Law
- Prop 22 requires that termination be based on grounds specified in the driver’s written contract. Drivers say they are being deactivated for reasons that appear nowhere in Uber’s Platform Access Agreement.6CalMatters. Uber Proposition 22 Lawsuit
The suit asks the court to declare Uber in violation of the law, award back pay to unfairly deactivated drivers, reinstate their accounts, and restore Labor Code protections. An Uber spokesperson called the suit a “baseless lawsuit by an opportunistic trial lawyer” and said the company provides a “clear appeals process” reviewed by a real person.7Los Angeles Times. New Lawsuit Alleges Uber Is Violating Drivers’ Rights No rulings have been issued since the filing.
Why Classification Keeps Coming Up
Both driver-side suits trace back to the same question: are Uber drivers employees or independent contractors? In 2019, California enacted Assembly Bill 5, which codified a strict three-part test from the state Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision and made it very difficult for rideshare companies to classify drivers as contractors.8Harvard Law Review. Assemb. B. 5, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019)
Rather than reclassify, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates spent an estimated $230 million to put Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot and pass it.9State Court Report. Fight Over Employment Status of Uber and Lyft Drivers Moves Through State Prop 22 exempts app-based drivers from AB 5 in exchange for a package of guaranteed protections: a minimum earnings floor of 120% of the minimum wage for engaged time, per-mile vehicle expense payments, healthcare subsidies for drivers averaging 15 or more engaged hours per week, occupational accident insurance, and written contracts with an appeals process for deactivation.10California Secretary of State. Proposition 22 Official Text
Unions sued to overturn Prop 22, and that fight is over. On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the measure in Castellanos v. State of California.11Justia Law. Castellanos et al. v. State of California et al., No. S279622 Prop 22 is in full effect, which is why the April 2026 suit targets Uber’s performance under the law rather than the law itself, and why the state’s wage theft case is limited to the pre-December 15, 2020 period.
Uber as Plaintiff: The RICO Case Against LA Injury Firms
Not every current Uber lawsuit in California has Uber as the defendant. On July 21, 2025, Uber filed a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit in the Central District of California against several Los Angeles personal injury attorneys and medical providers, alleging a coordinated scheme to manufacture and inflate insurance claims arising from rideshare accidents.12ABC7. Uber Files Federal Lawsuit Against Known LA Personal Injury Attorneys, Accuses Fraud
The case, Uber v. Downtown LA Law Group, et al., names attorney Jacob Emrani, Igor Fradkin of Downtown LA Law Group, and medical providers including GSK Spine and Radiance Surgery Center. Uber alleges the defendants steered accident claimants to pre-selected providers for unnecessary treatments, submitted artificially inflated bills, and used secret side agreements to discount those bills when settlements fell short.13Justia News. Uber Sues Plaintiffs Firms Alleging Fraudulent Personal Injury Claims
Defendants have denied the allegations, calling the suit “baseless” and an “orchestrated political hit piece,” and have filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that the case is retaliatory.12ABC7. Uber Files Federal Lawsuit Against Known LA Personal Injury Attorneys, Accuses Fraud As of mid-2026, the case remains active before Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Two medical-provider defendants were terminated from the suit in December 2025.14PACER Monitor. Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Downtown LA Law Group LLP et al., 2:25-cv-06612
The November 2026 Ballot Measures That Could Reshape Liability
A separate fight is playing out at the ballot box. Uber is backing a proposed constitutional amendment for the November 2026 ballot that would cap contingency fees for personal injury attorneys and limit recoverable medical expenses in all California vehicle crash cases. The company had invested more than $77 million in the effort by early 2026.15Los Angeles Times. Uber Ballot Measures, Trial Attorneys, Assault Lawsuits Competition The measure would require accident victims to keep at least 75% of their settlements and would limit medical expense awards to 125% of Medicare or 170% of Medi-Cal reimbursement rates.16CalMatters. Uber California Ballot Initiatives
Trial attorneys have put forward a competing measure that would classify ride-hailing companies as common carriers, substantially expanding their liability for driver assaults. It would also mandate annual fingerprint-based background checks and require companies to disclose internal driver risk scores on the app.15Los Angeles Times. Uber Ballot Measures, Trial Attorneys, Assault Lawsuits Competition Uber faces more than 3,600 pending lawsuits over alleged driver assaults, and its insurance reserves have grown from $4 billion in 2021 to roughly $12.5 billion in 2025.