A legislative proposal that would permit autonomous vehicles to function in Washington, D.C. has turned into a pivotal point for Uber’s wider robotaxi agenda. Rather than just collaborating with and investing in robotaxi creators, Uber is also seeking to influence the regulations governing them, a strategy that places it at odds with its business associate, Waymo.

Uber, which stands against the bill, contends that the suggested regulation would replace for-hire human drivers and grant Waymo a de facto monopoly. Instead, it has advocated for a framework that would mandate robotaxis to operate within a ride-hailing network that also includes human drivers, based on public records accessed by TechCrunch and discussions with industry and company insiders. 

“We have already observed in various regions how a misguided, exclusive first-party regulatory framework can disrupt an urban area,” Javi Correoso, head of U.S. policy and federal affairs at Uber, remarked in May during a D.C. Council roundtable concerning a different, existing law regulating for-hire drivers. Correoso asserted that robotaxis generate congestion through idling or traveling empty, are unable to offer the physical support that older or disabled individuals need, and referenced statistics indicating that one AV replaces approximately four human drivers.

When inquired about the hybrid model, Correoso articulated Uber’s regulatory perspective. 

“A hybrid model signifies that consumers should have the option to access both. If a consumer uses the app, they should be able to select,” he stated, according to a publicly accessible recording and transcript. “I would suggest going further: this should be embedded in the regulatory framework for the sector. There ought to be a stipulation for users to have access to a human-driven Uber.”

Waymo, owned by Alphabet, argues that the bill it supports will facilitate the secure deployment of autonomous vehicles while enhancing public transportation, equitable access, and support for workers, without curbing businesses like Uber. 

On Monday, the two companies will express their viewpoints during a lengthy hearing. The bill’s approval is not imminent—various stakeholders informed TechCrunch that they hope legislation is enacted before the year concludes and prior to Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser departing office in January. Nonetheless, the discussions and lobbying efforts surrounding the bill illustrate a larger debate that extends beyond Washington D.C.

The proposed AV bill

Introduced by Councilmember Charles Allen in May, the bill aims to update the Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 to allow for driverless testing and commercial operations within the district. At present, companies like Waymo and Zoox conduct autonomous vehicle testing, but only with a human safety operator in the driver’s seat.

The proposed legislation would empower the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to grant permits for driverless testing and deployment to AV developers that fulfill specific criteria. Such criteria include maintaining a minimum of $5 million in liability coverage and committing to report crash data within either 8 hours or 72 hours, based on whether the vehicle is part of a commercial fleet or a privately owned AV (which is not currently available in the market).

Additionally, the bill would impose a $0.15 per mile tax on robotaxi operators, a suggestion that robotaxi proponents have labeled as overly burdensome. Revenue from this “vehicles miles traveled” (VMT) tax would be divided, with 50% allocated to public transit and the remainder utilized to support education and workforce initiatives for ride-share and taxi drivers at risk of losing their livelihoods to robot vehicles.

The bill has attracted a variety of stakeholders beyond Uber and Waymo. Numerous organizations and companies—including representatives from Tesla, Lyft, the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union labor groups, disability rights and accessibility organizations, local businesses and industry representatives, highway safety advocates, government officials, and think tanks—are all set to contribute to Monday’s hearing. 

The proposal has spurred an anti-robotaxi campaign initiated by a New York-based entity named Coalition for Accountability and Road Safety, which is engaging voters and utilizing social media outreach. The funding sources for the organization remain ambiguous, as it is registered to an employee of Pitta Bishop & Del Giorno LLC, a New York lobbying and government affairs firm associated with labor and employment law firm Pitta LLP.

Publicly available lobbying records show Pitta has been engaged over the past year by numerous labor unions and the New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund. 

The stakes are significant for all robotaxi developers, human drivers, and the ride-hailing and taxi firms that employ them in D.C. The stakes are arguably even higher for Uber and Waymo, given their substantial market influence. Uber is the leading ride-hailing and delivery network in the United States, while Waymo is the top robotaxi provider, offering over 500,000 rides weekly across 11 cities. 

Should Uber succeed and its hybrid network concept be embraced in D.C. — or elsewhere — it would leave AV developers such as Waymo with two options: place their robotaxis on ride-hailing apps like Uber’s or utilize human drivers who offer ride-hailing services alongside robot cars that have taken extensive time and investment to develop.

If Waymo and other advocates of the D.C. bill achieve success, Uber contends it will be relegated entirely.

Protect and expand

Although the bill concerns local policy, it underscores one aspect of Uber’s strategy to safeguard its dominant position in the ride-hailing and delivery sectors. 

Uber is presently investing in and collaborating with over 30 autonomous vehicle technology companies across the globe while also establishing AV Labs, a newly created division aimed at gathering and sharing real-world driving data with AV creators. The firm is recruiting numerous engineers for this division, according to job postings and discussions with knowledgeable sources. 

As Uber asserts its presence in the AV landscape, it is simultaneously promoting protective regulations that mandate autonomous vehicles to function alongside human drivers within a unified platform — much like the Uber app. 

Uber’s investment and partnership initiatives have been ongoing for several years. The company’s advocacy for a hybrid network is a more recent development, first appearing in a white paper released in May. Since then, Uber has increased its advocacy with policymakers, including the D.C. Council roundtable meeting in May aimed at revising the district’s Vehicle-for-Hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014. (This legislation, which manages ride-hailing and taxi services through the Department of For-Hire Vehicles, is distinct from the AV bill, but multiple sources have informed TechCrunch that the policies overlap.)

In June, Uber sent a letter to the D.C. Council, which TechCrunch has reviewed, further elaborating on Correoso’s prior statements. The letter noted that the hybrid concept would represent a singular transportation network with traditional drivers that subsequently incorporates autonomous vehicles.

“In practical terms, this means that if you request an Uber in an area with AVs, you may be paired with either an AV or a human driver, depending on the specifics of your journey,” the letter indicated. 

In D.C., Uber is reacting to a proposal that would essentially prohibit hybrid networks, as stated by company spokesperson Noah Edwardsen to TechCrunch. 

Waymo contests this interpretation, with a company representative stating that Waymo does not endorse attempts to restrict AVs to particular types of networks. “We would welcome modifications that make it clear that different network types can function in the District,” wrote Waymo spokesperson Ethan Teicher in an email to TechCrunch.

More broadly, Edwardsen claimed that Uber has not adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, contrasting it with “advocacy from segments of the AV sector today, where proposals have frequently failed to address significant issues like labor and transportation equity — or that have attempted to opportunistically exclude competitors and create monopolies — making them mostly unviable.”

While a variety of industry experts have critiqued certain elements of the D.C. bill — particularly the VMT tax and proposed robotaxi cap — some are opposed to Uber’s hybrid proposition. 

Greg Rogers, founder and executive director of the nonprofit mobility and tech think tank The Innovation Majority, is expected to speak at Monday’s hearing and characterized Uber’s maneuver as an effort at “regulatory capture.”

“Mobility is already an existing marketplace — individuals can currently choose whether to use a bus, ride a bike, walk, or take a rideshare each day,” Rogers told TechCrunch in an interview. “And any argument suggesting that consumer welfare can be enhanced by mandating specific business models while eliminating others does not enhance people’s mobility options. It does not improve road safety, and instead risks further entrenching interests and monetizing anyone seeking to operate AVs in the district.”

Uber’s pro-driver, “let’s find common ground” stance may astonish keen observers of the ride-hailing entity. The company’s formative years were characterized by an anti-regulation mindset that sought loopholes within current laws or altogether disregarded them.

Uber has frequently opposed regulations supported by labor unions, such as AB 5 in California, which would have disrupted its asset-light business model by classifying gig workers as employees. Proposition 22, a 2020 ballot measure passed by voters and validated by the California Supreme Court, was supported by Uber, Lyft, and others as a compromise that afforded workers access to health insurance and other benefits while preserving their contractor status.

These confrontations, along with others of a similar nature, have taught Uber the necessity of considering human employees and the influence of labor unions that advocate for them, should it aspire to occupy a central role in the robotaxi market, according to sources. Uber’s own chief operating officer Andrew MacDonald adopted a similar tone of having “learned from past experiences” in a LinkedIn post in May that promoted its white paper.

MacDonald remarked that the repercussions of the company’s aggressive growth tactics led to “regulatory conflicts and a corporate crisis that undermined trust for years.”

“That experience transformed us,” he asserted. “Nowadays, we collaborate with municipalities instead of confronting them.”

Uber contends that its hybrid network proposal represents that compromise — allowing for the coexistence of robotaxis and human drivers on the same platform while mitigating labor concerns.

The company is dedicated to advocating for this idea in other cities and states as legislators formulate new AV regulations or amend existing ones.

Wired released its own report elaborating on lobbying endeavors in New Jersey and D.C.

Uber’s position, coupled with its active lobbying, places it on a collision path with Waymo. 

Frenemies

Waymo and Uber have previously clashed over autonomous vehicle innovation.

In 2017, Waymo initiated a lawsuit against Uber over accusations of trade secret misappropriation. The highly publicized court case, where Waymo alleged that Uber used trade secrets illicitly obtained by former Google engineer Anthony Levandowski, featured memorable testimony and revealed phrases like “laser is the sauce.” The trial concluded in just five days when Uber opted for a settlement, leading the two companies to cease their public disputes.

Fast forward six years, with Uber’s internal AV development program divested to Aurora, the former adversaries joined forces. Waymo agreed to integrate its self-driving cars into Uber’s app in Phoenix in 2023. However, this partnership quietly concluded in May, characterized as limited and a “pilot.” Waymo also maintains its standalone app in Phoenix, its inaugural robotaxi market.

The relationship appeared to strengthen by March 2025, when company leaders, enjoying prickly pear margaritas and plates of Terry Black’s barbecue at a private gathering, celebrated the introduction of Waymo robotaxis on the Uber app in Austin during the annual SXSW festival. This partnership soon expanded to Atlanta. In both cities, eager customers cannot directly summon a robotaxi through Waymo’s app; they must rely on the Uber app and hope for a successful match.

Recently, however, the relationship has taken a sour turn—publicly.

Earlier this year, Uber chief technology officer Praveen Neppalli openly criticized Waymo on X, sharing a video and commentary highlighting the unsafe and “scary” actions of a Waymo robotaxi. During an earnings call in May, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi made remarks directed at Waymo without naming the company, expressing support for regulatory oversight.

“They’re posing the right inquiries, which concern how AVs will manage interactions in situations with power outages or in school zones or collaborating with firefighters, etc., in urban environments,” Khosrowshahi stated, referencing recent incidents involving Waymo robotaxis. 

The tension between Waymo and Uber has even reached an international level, as both companies prepare for an anticipated showdown in London.

Amid rising speculation about the timeline for potential collapses of Uber and Waymo’s existing collaborations in Austin or Atlanta, both entities are preparing for a regulatory battle that seems likely to extend into other cities and states.

Uber is betting, and lobbying for, a distinct future than the one Waymo envisions.

“We believe that the future of our transportation system will be hybrid,” asserted Uber’s head of AV policy Harry Hartfield in testimony given prior to Monday’s meeting. “Public policy should be structured around that reality, rather than an AV-exclusive scenario that does not exist.”