Uber has shifted gears in its legal strategy, launching an assertive counterattack against the plaintiffs’ bar that could reshape how corporate giants engage with litigation. In a move that reverses its usual courtroom stance, the ride-hailing company has initiated lawsuits against lawyers representing claimants in personal injury and sexual assault cases, alleging unethical practices designed to inflate settlements.
The company’s filing in a Los Angeles federal court accuses several personal injury attorneys of colluding with medical providers to manufacture inflated treatment costs, thus manipulating damages. Uber’s legal team claims that this scheme not only distorts justice but burdens the broader system with unnecessary expenses. Simultaneously, Uber is pursuing injunctions to prevent opposing lawyers from repurposing confidential documents, originally disclosed in assault cases, for use in related litigation, citing a breach of protective orders.
This intensified approach is not entirely new for Uber, which previously funded a 2024 ballot initiative in Nevada aimed at capping contingency fees. Although that effort failed after the state’s top court ruled it misleading, it underscored Uber’s broader strategy to limit what it sees as exploitative legal practices. Now, by taking the offensive, Uber joins a rising trend of corporates, such as 3M and JM Eagle, suing plaintiff-side lawyers for alleged fraud and misconduct.
However, this tactic has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups like the American Association for Justice, which argue that such countersuits threaten access to justice and serve as intimidation. Smaller legal firms, without the deep pockets to defend against corporate countersuits, may feel pressured to avoid high-stakes cases altogether, potentially silencing legitimate claims.
At the heart of this strategy lies a tension between corporate self-defence and judicial fairness. While Uber asserts it is protecting itself against opportunistic litigation, its actions raise broader concerns about legal equity. Whether these suits succeed in court is yet to be determined, but they undeniably signal a shift in power dynamics between corporations and the legal practitioners who challenge them. For the legal industry, the implications could be lasting, influencing both how cases are built and how aggressively firms prepare to defend their right to litigate.
