Millions of dollars, a lengthy court fight and one failed ballot initiative later, Nevada trial lawyers and Uber have reached a deal.

AB523, a fast-tracked bill that was heard and passed unanimously Tuesday in the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure just a day after being introduced, states that ridesharing companies would not be liable for harms imposed by their drivers or passengers as long as they provide a minimum of $1 million in insurance coverage to drivers while transporting passengers. This marks a decrease from the current minimum threshold of $1.5 million.

As part of the agreement, both sides have verbally agreed to not pursue any bills or ballot resolutions targeting the other for six years, two people familiar with the discussions told The Indy.

“We’re hopeful that this negotiated settlement will resolve matters now and into the future,” Matthew Sharp, a former president of the Nevada Justice Association, an influential group of state trial lawyers, said during Tuesday’s hearing.

Uber declined to comment.

Assm. Howard Watts (D-Las Vegas), the chair of the growth and infrastructure committee, said “we want to get this issue resolved expeditiously.”

The bill marks a potential end point in a yearlong dispute between Uber and the Nevada Justice Association that included millions of dollars of political donations, targeted advertising campaigns and legal fights. Uber poured $5 million into the PAC behind the ballot initiative, while the political arm of the Nevada Justice Association was among the largest donors to state legislators in the 2024 election cycle.

The subject of the bill departs from the original focus of the Uber-proposed ballot initiative to crack down on fees that Nevada attorneys recoup in civil cases.

That ballot initiative sought to cap attorney fees in Nevada civil cases at 20 percent of all settlements and awards, prompting strong pushback from trial lawyers. They argued it would make it much harder to find lawyers to take on cases, and accused Uber of trying to stymie sexual misconduct lawsuits it was facing.

In January, the Nevada Supreme Court blocked the petition, ruling that its summary was confusing.

But the issue hasn’t gone away.

An Uber-funded PAC launched a billboard and digital advertising campaign last month to urge lawmakers to stand up to “greedy lawyers,” and a bill from Sen. Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) was introduced that essentially mirrored the proposed ballot initiative, though it’s not expected to progress in the Legislature.

The bill introduced Monday is the compromise.

It would not absolve ridesharing companies from liability in any kind of lawsuit — only for the behavior of their drivers or passengers. It would also only apply to cases related to incidents that occurred after Oct. 1, 2025.

“The agreement is to provide Uber with no [liability for others’ behavior], but maintain liability for their own wrongful conduct,” Sharp said.

This means that it would not affect the multidistrict litigation the company is facing in California — which includes accusations from victims of sexual miscconduct in Nevada — that alleges it failed to protect passengers from sexual abuse. This litigation, which encompasses hundreds of lawsuits, focuses on the company’s practices and policies, rather than the direct actions of its drivers.

The behavior of Uber drivers in Nevada has at times gained national attention, including the 2021 charging of a driver for raping his passenger.

“This bill would not prevent former Uber passengers who were sexually assaulted or harassed by their Uber drivers from bringing various claims against Uber, including negligence, breach of contract, and product liability claims,” said Deepak Gupta, an attorney for Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability, which challenged last year’s ballot initiative alongside the trial lawyers group.

The bill would also decrease the minimum amount of required insurance coverage provided by ridesharing companies when a driver is transporting a passenger from $1.5 million to $1 million. The new amount would be on par with 48 other states, said John Griffin, a lobbyist for Uber.

These provisions would also apply to delivery companies such as Uber Eats and DoorDash.

It remains much higher than the insurance coverage that must be provided to other forms of transportation, such as taxi companies.

“This does strike a balance between the protection of the public, while acknowledging Uber’s interest in having affordable insurance,” Sharp said.