Uber has poured millions of dollars into a Nevada ballot initiative that would impose a stringent cap on attorneys share of civil lawsuit payouts potentially limiting the ride-hailing giants exposure to sexual assault claims and other litigation from customers and drivers.

The measure , pushed by a new political action committee called Nevadans for Fair Recovery, would set a firm 20% ceiling on lawyers contingency fees in all civil cases in the state. Plaintiffs are likely to hire attorneys on contingency when they cant afford to pay an hourly rate out of pocket; an attorney then takes a cut of any judgment or settlement if a case succeeds.

Backers of the proposal assert that its aimed at sketchy billboard lawyers who drive up litigation costs with dubious, slip-and-fall-type claims. But lowering the fees in civil lawsuits could make plaintiffs attorneys less likely to take certain cases possibly freezing legitimate plaintiffs out of the justice system and saving the likes of Uber from civil liabilities.

The ride-hailing company is the measures lead sponsor and has dumped at least $4 million into the effort so far, according to state campaign finance filings . Local news site The Nevada Independent listed it among the biggest political contributions toward a ballot initiative this year. Backers hope to get the proposal on the states ballot in November.

Uber did not respond to questions from HuffPost about why capping attorneys contingency fees in Nevada was important to the San Francisco-based tech company and its drivers. A spokesperson for Nevadans for Fair Recovery reached out to HuffPost to insist that the initiative would benefit, not hurt, civil plaintiffs.

The measure protects plaintiffs by ensuring they receive more money when they win in court or settle a case, the spokesperson said in an email. Importantly, the measure does not limit the ability of plaintiffs to sue, or limit the amount defendants must pay when they are found liable.

But Deepak Gupta, a Washington, D.C.-based plaintiffs attorney and lecturer at Harvard Law School whos fighting the proposal, said that it would amount to the most extreme limitation on access to legal counsel in the country.

He said that the norm for contingency fees in Nevada is currently between 33% and 40%, and slashing it to 20% would make complex cases less worthwhile for attorneys to pursue. The ballot initiative language includes no exception for class action lawsuits, in which individual plaintiffs ban together in larger numbers.

A company like Uber could hire the most expensive lawyers on earth to defend itself, but they want to hamstring the ability of ordinary people who are suing companies like Uber to be able to get counsel, Gupta said.

He suspects that Uber will take the contingency fee cap to other states if it succeeds in Nevada. He acknowledged that he doesnt know why the company is trying to pass it in the Silver State in particular.

Perhaps they chose Nevada because its a smaller state, and its cheaper and easier to get things onto the ballot, he said. They have to start somewhere.

He noted that since Uber no longer funnels drivers or customers into mandatory arbitration for sexual assault and harassment allegations, it must now face those claims in court. The company dropped its arbitration policy in 2018 amid the #MeToo movement, and Congress later banned the mandatory use of arbitration in sexual assault and harassment cases.