A proposed bill that would allow autonomous vehicles to operate in Washington, D.C. has become a test case for Uber\u2019s broader robotaxi strategy. Instead of simply partnering with, and investing in, robotaxi developers, Uber is also trying to shape the rules that govern them, an effort that puts it in direct opposition with its business partner, Waymo.<\/p>\n
Uber, which opposes the bill, argues the proposed rule would displace for-hire human drivers and hand Waymo a de facto monopoly. It has lobbied instead for a system that would require robotaxis to operate on a ride-hailing network that also uses human drivers, according to public records viewed by TechCrunch and interviews with industry and company sources.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have already seen in other jurisdictions how a flawed, first-party only regulatory approach can disrupt a city,\u201d Javi Correoso, who leads U.S. policy and federal affairs for Uber, said in May during a D.C. Council roundtable on a separate, existing statute regulating for-hire drivers. Correoso argued at the time that robotaxis create congestion by idling or cruising empty, cannot provide the kind of physical assistance to older or disabled adults that human drivers can, and cited data that states one AV displaces roughly four drivers.<\/p>\n
When asked about the hybrid model, Correoso shared Uber\u2019s regulatory vision.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cHybrid model means that consumers should have the ability to access both. If a consumer is on the app, they should be able to choose,\u201d he said, according to a publicly available recording and transcript. \u201cI would go a step further: I think it should be part of the regulatory framework for the industry. There should be a requirement for consumers to be able to take an Uber that\u2019s driven by a human.\u201d<\/p>\n
Alphabet-owned Waymo contends the bill, which it backs, will allow for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles while supporting public transit, equitable access, and workers without restricting companies like Uber.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The two companies will pitch their positions on Monday during a day-long hearing. The bill\u2019s passage is not imminent \u2014 many parties told TechCrunch they hope legislation is approved before the end of the year, and before Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser leaves office in January. Still, the arguments and lobbying efforts surrounding the bill reflect a broader debate that stretches beyond Washington D.C.<\/p>\n
The proposed AV bill<\/strong><\/h2>\nThe bill, which was introduced by Councilmember Charles Allen in May, would update the existing Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 to allow for driverless testing and commercial driverless operations within the district. Today, companies like Waymo and Zoox can test autonomous vehicles, but only with a human safety operator behind the wheel.<\/p>\n
The proposed bill<\/a> would give the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) the authority to issue driverless testing and deployment permits to AV developers that meet certain requirements. Such requirements include holding a minimum of $5 million in liability insurance, and agreeing to report crash data within either 8 hours or 72 hours, depending on whether the vehicle is part of a commercial fleet or a privately owned AV (which doesn\u2019t yet exist in the market).<\/p>\nThe bill would also charge robotaxi operators a $0.15 per mile tax, a proposal that robotaxi advocates have argued is too expensive. Revenue from the \u201cvehicles miles traveled\u201d (VMT) tax would be split, with 50% going towards public transit and the remaining used to support education and workforce development for ride-share and taxi drivers at risk of losing their jobs to robot cars.<\/p>\n
Uber and Waymo are not the only parties interested in the bill. Numerous organizations and companies, including representatives from Tesla, Lyft, the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union labor unions, disability rights and accessibility advocacy groups, local business and industry groups, highway safety proponents, government officials, and think tanks are all scheduled to speak<\/a> during Monday\u2019s hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\nThe bill prompted an anti-robotaxi campaign, launched by a New York-based organization called Coalition for Accountability and Road Safety<\/a>, which is canvassing voters and posting on social media. It\u2019s unclear who is funding the organization, which is registered to an employee of Pitta Bishop & Del Giorno LLC, a New York lobbying and government affairs outfit affiliated with labor and employment law firm Pitta LLP. <\/p>\nAccording to publicly available lobbying documents listed by the city, Pitta has been retained over the past year by several labor unions and the New York Black Car Operators\u2019 Injury Compensation Fund.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The stakes are high for all robotaxi developers, human drivers, and the ride-hailing and taxi companies that employ them in D.C. It\u2019s arguably elevated for Uber and Waymo, given their considerable market positions. Uber is the largest ride-hailing and delivery network in the United States, and Waymo is the largest robotaxi operator, providing more than 500,000 rides each week across 11 cities.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If Uber is successful and its hybrid network idea is adopted in D.C. \u2014 or elsewhere \u2014 it would leave AV developers like Waymo with two choices: put their robotaxis on ride-hailing apps like Uber\u2019s, or employ human drivers who provide ride-hailing services alongside the robot cars that have taken years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.<\/p>\n
If Waymo and other supporters of the D.C. bill are successful, Uber argues it will be pushed out altogether.<\/p>\n
Protect and expand<\/strong><\/h2>\nUber-Lucid<\/span>Image Credits:<\/strong>Uber\/Lucid\/Nuro<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe bill is a local policy fight, but it also highlights one prong of Uber\u2019s strategy to protect its leading position in the ride-hailing and delivery market.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Uber is actively investing in and partnering with autonomous vehicle technology companies \u2014 more than 30 globally \u2014\u00a0while also building AV Labs<\/a>, a new business unit designed to collect and share real-world driving data with AV developers. The company is hiring dozens of engineers for the division, according to job listings and interviews with sources familiar with the effort.\u00a0<\/p>\nWhile Uber stakes its claim in the AV market, it is also championing protective policies that would require autonomous vehicles to operate alongside human drivers within a single platform \u2014 much like the Uber app.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Uber\u2019s investment and partnership activity has been underway for several years. The company\u2019s push for a hybrid network is recent, first emerging in a white paper<\/a> published in May. Since then, Uber has ramped up its rhetoric with policymakers, including the D.C. Council roundtable meeting in May to discuss updates to the district\u2019s Vehicle-for-Hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014. (That law, which regulates ride-hailing and taxi services through the Department of For-Hire Vehicles<\/a>, is separate from the AV bill, but multiple sources told TechCrunch that the policies overlap.)<\/p>\nUber submitted a letter to D.C. Council in June, which TechCrunch has seen, elaborating on Uber\u2019s policy chief Correoso\u2019s earlier comments. The letter stated the hybrid approach would be a single transportation network with traditional drivers that gradually incorporates autonomous vehicles.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat this means in practice is that if you call an Uber in a market with AVs, you might get matched with an AV or a human driver, depending on the nature of your trip,\u201d the letter reads.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In D.C., Uber is responding to a bill that would effectively ban hybrid networks altogether, company spokesperson Noah Edwardsen told TechCrunch.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Waymo disputes that interpretation, and a representative for the company said Waymo does not support efforts to limit AVs to specific types of networks. \u201cWe would welcome changes clarifying that different types of networks can operate in the District,\u201d Waymo spokesperson Ethan Teicher wrote in an emailed statement sent to TechCrunch.<\/p>\n
More broadly, Edwardsen said Uber has never taken a one-size-fits-all approach to policy, contrasting it to \u201cadvocacy from parts of the AV industry today, where proposals have repeatedly failed to address important issues like labor and transportation equity \u2014 or that have tried to cynically lock out competitors and create monopolies \u2014 making them largely unworkable.\u201d<\/p>\n
While numerous industry insiders have criticized aspects of the D.C. bill \u2014 notably the VMT tax and proposed cap on robotaxis \u2014 some disagree with Uber\u2019s hybrid proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Greg Rogers, founder and executive director of the nonprofit mobility and tech think tank The Innovation Majority, is scheduled to speak at Monday\u2019s hearing, and he called Uber\u2019s move an attempt at \u201cregulatory capture.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMobility is already a marketplace \u2014 people already can make choices on whether to take a bus, or ride a bike, or walk, or take rideshare every day,\u201d Rogers told TechCrunch in an interview. \u201cAnd any argument that you can improve consumer welfare by forcing certain business models and canceling out others does not improve people\u2019s mobility choices. It does not improve road safety, and what it risks is only further entrenching interests and charging rent on anyone who seeks to operate AVs in the district.\u201d<\/p>\n
Uber\u2019s pro-driver, \u201dlet\u2019s compromise\u201d positioning may surprise close followers of the ride-hailing company. The company\u2019s early history was painted by an anti-regulation ethos that sought out loopholes within existing laws, or ignored them altogether.<\/p>\n
Uber often opposed union-supported regulations, like AB 5 in California, which would have disrupted its asset-light business model by classifying gig workers as employees. Proposition 22<\/a>, a 2020 ballot initiative passed by voters and upheld by the California Supreme Court, was backed by Uber, Lyft and others as a compromise that gave workers access to health insurance and other benefits while maintaining their contractor status.<\/p>\nThose fights, and others like it, have taught Uber that it has to consider human workers, and the power of labor unions that support them, if it wants to play a central role in the robotaxi market, according to sources. Uber\u2019s own chief operating officer Andrew MacDonald struck a similar we-learned-our-lesson tone in a LinkedIn post<\/a> in May that promoted its white paper.<\/p>\nMacdonald noted that the consequences of the company\u2019s grow-at-all-costs approach led to \u201cregulatory battles and a corporate crisis that damaged trust for years. \u201c<\/p>\n
\u201cThat experience changed us,\u201d he wrote. \u201cToday, we partner with cities instead of confronting them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Uber argues its hybrid network proposal is that compromise \u2014 one that allows robotaxis and human drivers to coexist on the same platform while easing labor concerns. <\/p>\n
The company is committed to pitching the idea in other cities and states as lawmakers develop new AV laws or update existing ones. <\/p>\n
Wired published its own report<\/a> detailing lobbying efforts in New Jersey and D.C.<\/p>\nUber\u2019s stance, and its active lobbying, puts it on a collision course with Waymo.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Frenemies<\/strong><\/h2>\n![\"Waymo](\"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Waymo-on-Uber_1-1.jpg\")
Image Credits:<\/strong>Waymo\/Uber<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWaymo and Uber have squared off over autonomous vehicle technology before.<\/p>\n
In 2017, Waymo sued Uber over allegations of trade secret theft<\/a>. The high-profile trial, in which Waymo accused Uber of using trade secrets downloaded by former Google engineer Anthony Levandowski, delivered memorable testimony and evidence, including phrases like \u201claser is the sauce.\u201d The trial lasted just five days before Uber agreed to settle<\/a>, and the two companies stopped sparring, at least publicly.<\/p>\nSix years later, with Uber\u2019s in-house AV development program sold off to Aurora<\/a>, the former courtroom rivals teamed up. Waymo agreed to put its self-driving vehicles on Uber\u2019s app<\/a> in Phoenix in 2023. That partnership, which quietly ended<\/a> in May, has been described as limited and as a \u201cpilot.\u201d Waymo also operates its own standalone app in Phoenix, its first robotaxi market.<\/p>\nThe relationship seemed to solidify by March 2025, when company executives \u2014 grasping mugs of prickly pear margaritas and plates of Terry Black\u2019s barbecue at a private party \u2014 celebrated the launch<\/a> of Waymo robotaxis on the Uber app in Austin during the annual music, film, and tech fest, SXSW. The partnership soon expanded to Atlanta. In both of those cities, prospective customers cannot hail a robotaxi directly through Waymo\u2019s app, and have to use the Uber app and hope for a match.<\/p>\nIn recent months, the relationship has soured\u00a0\u2014 and publicly.<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, Uber chief technology officer Praveen Neppalli openly criticized Waymo on X, posting a video and commentary calling out the\u00a0unsafe and \u201cscary\u201d behavior<\/a>\u00a0of a Waymo robotaxi.\u00a0During an earnings call in May, Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi dA proposed bill that would allow autonomous vehicles to operate in Washington, D.C. has become a test case for Uber\u2019s broader robotaxi strategy. Instead of simply partnering with, and investing in, robotaxi developers, Uber is also trying to shape the rules that govern them, an effort that puts it in direct opposition with its business partner, Waymo directed comments towards Waymo without directly naming the company when he expressed support for regulators.<\/p>\n\u201cThey\u2019re asking the right questions, which is how are AVs going to interact with \u2014 in situations where the power goes out or interacting in school zones or working with firefighters, etc. in the city,\u201d said Khosrowshahi, referring to recent incidents that involved Waymo robotaxis.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The tension between Waymo and Uber has even gone global, with both companies poised for a looming showdown in London<\/a>.<\/p>\nAs speculation swirls over when Uber and Waymo\u2019s existing partnerships in Austin or Atlanta will implode, both companies are gearing up for a regulatory fight that appears poised to spill into other cities and states.<\/p>\n
Uber is betting, and lobbying for, a different future than the one Waymo envisions.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe think the future of our transportation system will be hybrid,\u201d Uber\u2019s head of AV policy Harry Hartfield said in testimony submitted ahead of Monday\u2019s meeting. \u201cPublic policy should be designed around that reality, not around an AV-only future that does not exist.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n
The bill would also charge robotaxi operators a $0.15 per mile tax, a proposal that robotaxi advocates have argued is too expensive. Revenue from the \u201cvehicles miles traveled\u201d (VMT) tax would be split, with 50% going towards public transit and the remaining used to support education and workforce development for ride-share and taxi drivers at risk of losing their jobs to robot cars.<\/p>\n
Uber and Waymo are not the only parties interested in the bill. Numerous organizations and companies, including representatives from Tesla, Lyft, the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union labor unions, disability rights and accessibility advocacy groups, local business and industry groups, highway safety proponents, government officials, and think tanks are all scheduled to speak<\/a> during Monday\u2019s hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n The bill prompted an anti-robotaxi campaign, launched by a New York-based organization called Coalition for Accountability and Road Safety<\/a>, which is canvassing voters and posting on social media. It\u2019s unclear who is funding the organization, which is registered to an employee of Pitta Bishop & Del Giorno LLC, a New York lobbying and government affairs outfit affiliated with labor and employment law firm Pitta LLP. <\/p>\n According to publicly available lobbying documents listed by the city, Pitta has been retained over the past year by several labor unions and the New York Black Car Operators\u2019 Injury Compensation Fund.\u00a0<\/p>\n The stakes are high for all robotaxi developers, human drivers, and the ride-hailing and taxi companies that employ them in D.C. It\u2019s arguably elevated for Uber and Waymo, given their considerable market positions. Uber is the largest ride-hailing and delivery network in the United States, and Waymo is the largest robotaxi operator, providing more than 500,000 rides each week across 11 cities.\u00a0<\/p>\n If Uber is successful and its hybrid network idea is adopted in D.C. \u2014 or elsewhere \u2014 it would leave AV developers like Waymo with two choices: put their robotaxis on ride-hailing apps like Uber\u2019s, or employ human drivers who provide ride-hailing services alongside the robot cars that have taken years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.<\/p>\n If Waymo and other supporters of the D.C. bill are successful, Uber argues it will be pushed out altogether.<\/p>\n The bill is a local policy fight, but it also highlights one prong of Uber\u2019s strategy to protect its leading position in the ride-hailing and delivery market.\u00a0<\/p>\n Uber is actively investing in and partnering with autonomous vehicle technology companies \u2014 more than 30 globally \u2014\u00a0while also building AV Labs<\/a>, a new business unit designed to collect and share real-world driving data with AV developers. The company is hiring dozens of engineers for the division, according to job listings and interviews with sources familiar with the effort.\u00a0<\/p>\n While Uber stakes its claim in the AV market, it is also championing protective policies that would require autonomous vehicles to operate alongside human drivers within a single platform \u2014 much like the Uber app.\u00a0<\/p>\n Uber\u2019s investment and partnership activity has been underway for several years. The company\u2019s push for a hybrid network is recent, first emerging in a white paper<\/a> published in May. Since then, Uber has ramped up its rhetoric with policymakers, including the D.C. Council roundtable meeting in May to discuss updates to the district\u2019s Vehicle-for-Hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014. (That law, which regulates ride-hailing and taxi services through the Department of For-Hire Vehicles<\/a>, is separate from the AV bill, but multiple sources told TechCrunch that the policies overlap.)<\/p>\n Uber submitted a letter to D.C. Council in June, which TechCrunch has seen, elaborating on Uber\u2019s policy chief Correoso\u2019s earlier comments. The letter stated the hybrid approach would be a single transportation network with traditional drivers that gradually incorporates autonomous vehicles.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat this means in practice is that if you call an Uber in a market with AVs, you might get matched with an AV or a human driver, depending on the nature of your trip,\u201d the letter reads.\u00a0<\/p>\n In D.C., Uber is responding to a bill that would effectively ban hybrid networks altogether, company spokesperson Noah Edwardsen told TechCrunch.\u00a0<\/p>\n Waymo disputes that interpretation, and a representative for the company said Waymo does not support efforts to limit AVs to specific types of networks. \u201cWe would welcome changes clarifying that different types of networks can operate in the District,\u201d Waymo spokesperson Ethan Teicher wrote in an emailed statement sent to TechCrunch.<\/p>\n More broadly, Edwardsen said Uber has never taken a one-size-fits-all approach to policy, contrasting it to \u201cadvocacy from parts of the AV industry today, where proposals have repeatedly failed to address important issues like labor and transportation equity \u2014 or that have tried to cynically lock out competitors and create monopolies \u2014 making them largely unworkable.\u201d<\/p>\n While numerous industry insiders have criticized aspects of the D.C. bill \u2014 notably the VMT tax and proposed cap on robotaxis \u2014 some disagree with Uber\u2019s hybrid proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n Greg Rogers, founder and executive director of the nonprofit mobility and tech think tank The Innovation Majority, is scheduled to speak at Monday\u2019s hearing, and he called Uber\u2019s move an attempt at \u201cregulatory capture.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMobility is already a marketplace \u2014 people already can make choices on whether to take a bus, or ride a bike, or walk, or take rideshare every day,\u201d Rogers told TechCrunch in an interview. \u201cAnd any argument that you can improve consumer welfare by forcing certain business models and canceling out others does not improve people\u2019s mobility choices. It does not improve road safety, and what it risks is only further entrenching interests and charging rent on anyone who seeks to operate AVs in the district.\u201d<\/p>\n Uber\u2019s pro-driver, \u201dlet\u2019s compromise\u201d positioning may surprise close followers of the ride-hailing company. The company\u2019s early history was painted by an anti-regulation ethos that sought out loopholes within existing laws, or ignored them altogether.<\/p>\n Uber often opposed union-supported regulations, like AB 5 in California, which would have disrupted its asset-light business model by classifying gig workers as employees. Proposition 22<\/a>, a 2020 ballot initiative passed by voters and upheld by the California Supreme Court, was backed by Uber, Lyft and others as a compromise that gave workers access to health insurance and other benefits while maintaining their contractor status.<\/p>\n Those fights, and others like it, have taught Uber that it has to consider human workers, and the power of labor unions that support them, if it wants to play a central role in the robotaxi market, according to sources. Uber\u2019s own chief operating officer Andrew MacDonald struck a similar we-learned-our-lesson tone in a LinkedIn post<\/a> in May that promoted its white paper.<\/p>\n Macdonald noted that the consequences of the company\u2019s grow-at-all-costs approach led to \u201cregulatory battles and a corporate crisis that damaged trust for years. \u201c<\/p>\n \u201cThat experience changed us,\u201d he wrote. \u201cToday, we partner with cities instead of confronting them.\u201d<\/p>\n Uber argues its hybrid network proposal is that compromise \u2014 one that allows robotaxis and human drivers to coexist on the same platform while easing labor concerns. <\/p>\n The company is committed to pitching the idea in other cities and states as lawmakers develop new AV laws or update existing ones. <\/p>\n Wired published its own report<\/a> detailing lobbying efforts in New Jersey and D.C.<\/p>\n Uber\u2019s stance, and its active lobbying, puts it on a collision course with Waymo.\u00a0<\/p>\n Waymo and Uber have squared off over autonomous vehicle technology before.<\/p>\n In 2017, Waymo sued Uber over allegations of trade secret theft<\/a>. The high-profile trial, in which Waymo accused Uber of using trade secrets downloaded by former Google engineer Anthony Levandowski, delivered memorable testimony and evidence, including phrases like \u201claser is the sauce.\u201d The trial lasted just five days before Uber agreed to settle<\/a>, and the two companies stopped sparring, at least publicly.<\/p>\n Six years later, with Uber\u2019s in-house AV development program sold off to Aurora<\/a>, the former courtroom rivals teamed up. Waymo agreed to put its self-driving vehicles on Uber\u2019s app<\/a> in Phoenix in 2023. That partnership, which quietly ended<\/a> in May, has been described as limited and as a \u201cpilot.\u201d Waymo also operates its own standalone app in Phoenix, its first robotaxi market.<\/p>\n The relationship seemed to solidify by March 2025, when company executives \u2014 grasping mugs of prickly pear margaritas and plates of Terry Black\u2019s barbecue at a private party \u2014 celebrated the launch<\/a> of Waymo robotaxis on the Uber app in Austin during the annual music, film, and tech fest, SXSW. The partnership soon expanded to Atlanta. In both of those cities, prospective customers cannot hail a robotaxi directly through Waymo\u2019s app, and have to use the Uber app and hope for a match.<\/p>\n In recent months, the relationship has soured\u00a0\u2014 and publicly.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, Uber chief technology officer Praveen Neppalli openly criticized Waymo on X, posting a video and commentary calling out the\u00a0unsafe and \u201cscary\u201d behavior<\/a>\u00a0of a Waymo robotaxi.\u00a0During an earnings call in May, Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi dA proposed bill that would allow autonomous vehicles to operate in Washington, D.C. has become a test case for Uber\u2019s broader robotaxi strategy. Instead of simply partnering with, and investing in, robotaxi developers, Uber is also trying to shape the rules that govern them, an effort that puts it in direct opposition with its business partner, Waymo directed comments towards Waymo without directly naming the company when he expressed support for regulators.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re asking the right questions, which is how are AVs going to interact with \u2014 in situations where the power goes out or interacting in school zones or working with firefighters, etc. in the city,\u201d said Khosrowshahi, referring to recent incidents that involved Waymo robotaxis.\u00a0<\/p>\n The tension between Waymo and Uber has even gone global, with both companies poised for a looming showdown in London<\/a>.<\/p>\n As speculation swirls over when Uber and Waymo\u2019s existing partnerships in Austin or Atlanta will implode, both companies are gearing up for a regulatory fight that appears poised to spill into other cities and states.<\/p>\n Uber is betting, and lobbying for, a different future than the one Waymo envisions.<\/p>\n \u201cWe think the future of our transportation system will be hybrid,\u201d Uber\u2019s head of AV policy Harry Hartfield said in testimony submitted ahead of Monday\u2019s meeting. \u201cPublic policy should be designed around that reality, not around an AV-only future that does not exist.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\nProtect and expand<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Frenemies<\/strong><\/h2>\n