Uber Files RICO Lawsuit in California Against Plaintiff Attorneys and Medical Lien Providers Alleging Fraudulent Medical Treatment and Billing

On July 21, 2025, Uber Technologies, Inc. filed a Federal District Court RICO lawsuit against a group of attorneys and medical providers alleging “phantom damages.” (Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Downtown LA Law Group, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00612, CD Cal.) At its heart, the complaint alleges that the named attorneys and medical providers engaged in a fraudulent scheme wherein the “lawyers direct claimants to pre-selected medical providers to receive procedures for minor or nonexistent injuries.” The complaint further alleges that the medical providers then “generate and submit artificially inflated bills” for the treatment, referencing secret side agreements where the provider agrees to accepted amounts lower than the billed amounts. Uber further alleges that these arrangements raise ethical concerns and constitute unlawful kickbacks.

The lawsuit references three alleged specific cases it contends reflect evidence of a scheme. One person involved an alleged minor crash where the physician performed invasive back surgery costing $550,000, which Uber alleges was billed at up to ten times the market rate.

As background, recent California Court of Appeals decisions have opened the door for plaintiffs to admit unpaid lien medical bills as evidence of medical damages, even in situations where the plaintiff had access to insurance coverage and elected not to use those providers. These lien bills are often higher than what a medical provider would customarily accept as payment for the same services rendered, had that medical provider submitted the bill to an insurer. While defendants are generally allowed to point this fact out through the use of medical billing experts or medical providers confirming what they customarily accept as payment for medical services, a plaintiff can and often will contend that they entered into a binding agreement with their lien-provider to be responsible for the full-value of the lien bill. Uber’s lawsuit is apparently, in part, challenging that contention.