SB 623: Automobile accidents: civil actions: transportation network companies.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

(1)Existing law provides that in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except as provided, is the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.

This bill, with respect to a civil case, claim, action, or arbitration against a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver, as defined, arising from an automobile accident, would, except as specified, prohibit the maximum recovery of a plaintiff for damages for any medical expense for services rendered by a lien-based provider, as defined, from exceeding the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.’s billed charges, or the 70th percentile of a comparable commercially recognized billed charges database for the same or similar service in the applicable geographic area at the time the service was rendered. The bill would prohibit certain evidence from being introduced that exceeds the recoverable amount.

This bill would provide that if a medical lien, as defined, receivable, or right to payment has been sold or otherwise transferred, the maximum recoverable medical expense damages shall not exceed the total consideration paid or payable in connection with the transaction to acquire the lien, receivable, or right to payment, as provided. The bill would require any agreement relating to the sale or transfer of a medical lien, receivable, or right to payment, and the consideration paid or payable therefor, to be discoverable, and would prohibit an undisclosed lien sale or transfer from being asserted against a defendant, insurer, settlement, judgment, or settlement proceeds. The bill would also require certain medical lien financial relationships and attorney referral information to be discoverable.

This bill would make it unlawful for an attorney representing a plaintiff under a contingency fee agreement in a civil claim, action, or arbitration, as described above, to refer a client to a health care provider in which the attorney or a member of the attorney’s immediate family has a direct ownership interest. The bill would also make it unlawful for an attorney to fee split or receive other specified compensation in connection with the furnishing of lien-based provider medical treatment for a plaintiff and would make it unlawful for an attorney or law firm to provide specified compensation for referrals of clients to lien-based providers for lien-based treatment. The bill would also make other actions related to the reduction of a medical lien unlawful, as specified.

This bill would provide that these provisions are severable.

(2)The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act defines a transportation network company as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. Existing law requires a transportation network company to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each participating driver, as specified, and prohibits a transportation network company from contracting with, employing, or retaining a driver if the driver, among other things, is currently registered on the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public website, has been convicted of any of certain terrorism-related or human trafficking felonies or a violent felony or, within the previous 7 years, has been convicted of any misdemeanor assault or battery, any domestic violence offense, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or any of a specified list of felonies. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 2

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. June 25, 2026Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 17, Statutes of 2026.
2. June 25, 2026Approved by the Governor.
3. June 25, 2026Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 12:30 p.m.
4. June 25, 2026Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 5002.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
5. June 25, 2026In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
6. June 25, 2026Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 5854.) Ordered to the Senate.
7. June 24, 2026Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
8. June 23, 2026From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 23).
9. June 22, 2026Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.
10. June 22, 2026Re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
11. June 22, 2026From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
12. June 18, 2026Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.