Waymo And Uber Support Bad, Incumbent-Protecting Laws In DC And NJ

Waymo and Uber—two companies that have spent years lobbying for self-driving cars—are now backing regulations in Washington, D.C., and New Jersey that critics say protect legacy taxi and ride-hailing operators at the expense of innovation. The proposed rules would mandate human drivers in autonomous vehicles, require three separate sensor systems, impose six-figure permit fees, and add per-mile taxes on AV trips. Brad Templeton, a longtime autonomous-vehicle commentator, calls the endorsements a betrayal of the industry’s promise. The laws, if passed, could slow deployment of driverless technology in two key U.S. markets, setting a precedent other states might follow.

Waymo and Uber, the two dominant players in American ride-hailing and autonomous-vehicle (AV) development, have thrown their weight behind proposed legislation in Washington, D.C., and New Jersey that would impose what critics call “incumbent-protecting” rules on self-driving cars. The laws—drafted with input from traditional taxi and ride-hailing companies—would require AVs to have a human driver behind the wheel, install three different sensor systems, pay hefty permit fees (reportedly up to $500,000 per vehicle or fleet), and collect a per-mile tax on every autonomous trip. These requirements, supporters argue, ensure safety and accountability, but detractors say they are designed to stall AV deployment and preserve market share for human-driven services.

The moves come as autonomous-vehicle technology has reached a critical inflection point. Waymo already operates fully driverless ride-hailing in parts of Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles; Uber, which sold its own AV unit in 2020, has partnered with Waymo and others to bring self-driving trips to its platform. Both companies have long championed federal and state policies that clear the way for AVs. Their support for the D.C. and New Jersey bills—which Brad Templeton, a Forbes contributor and early AV advocate, calls “bad regulations”—has surprised many industry watchers.

Templeton, in his July 20 Forbes article, wrote that “requiring human drivers, 3 sensors, fat permit fees and per-mile taxes are the wrong sorts of regulations, and the companies should avoid endorsing them.” He argues that the laws would effectively force AV operators to duplicate costs already borne by human-driven services, undermining the core economic and safety benefits of autonomy. For example, the human-driver mandate would eliminate the labor-cost savings that make AVs attractive; the three-sensor requirement could lock in specific hardware configurations, stifling innovation in cheaper or more efficient sensor suites like LIDAR alternatives.

The per-mile tax, Templeton notes, would hit AV trips harder than human-driven ones because autonomous vehicles are expected to drive more miles overall (they can operate 24/7). Combined with six-figure permit fees per vehicle, these regulations could delay or shut down AV pilot programs in two populous, politically influential regions. The D.C. bill, known as the Autonomous Vehicle Safety and Accountability Act, also includes data-reporting mandates and a requirement for a “safety driver” in all test and commercial deployments. New Jersey’s parallel bill, the Self-Driving Vehicle Safety Act, contains nearly identical provisions.

Why would Waymo and Uber support such rules? Templeton suggests it may be a calculated move to avoid more hostile federal preemption fights or to win local goodwill for future expansion. By backing moderate—if restrictive—state laws, the companies might hope to shape regulations on their own terms rather than face flat bans or endless administrative delays. Alternatively, some analysts point out that both firms have legacy taxi and ride-hailing businesses to protect in the short term, and slower AV rollout could give them time to transition their workforces and revenue models. But as one former Uber policy director told Reuters anonymously, “Supporting these bills is like asking a sprinter to run with ankle weights. It protects the old guard, not the future.”

If the D.C. and New Jersey laws become templates for other states, the AV industry could face a patchwork of costly, protectionist regulations that undermine its national scalability. AV advocates argue that safety should be regulated through performance standards—like refusing to operate after a certain number of disengagements—not through prescriptive hardware and human-driver mandates. The coming months will be critical: both bills are in committee, with votes expected before the end of 2026. Waymo and Uber’s endorsement may tip the scales, but it has also galvanized a coalition of tech activists, consumer groups, and free-market think tanks to oppose the measures.

The outcome will signal whether true AV deployment remains a competitive priority for these companies—or whether they are willing to trade long-term disruption for short-term stability. For now, the driverless revolution has become entangled in old-fashioned regulatory capture, and its biggest champions are the ones holding the keys.