This is a strange question to ask. The regulation is not there to benefit Uber, it is to benefit public good. Very few companies would follow regulation if it was a choice. The setup of such regulation would be for it to be criminal to not comply. And if Uber could not operate in California (or the USA) if they did not comply, it would in their interest to provide the requested information.
Uber has shown very often that they are willing to break the law. It seems within their modus-operandus to just ignore these rules.
Essentially, Uber engages in regulatory arbitrage but taking into account the cost-benefits of breaking the law. I.e. if it breaks the law but is profitable for them, they seem to do it.
Sure, so make the regulation expensive. For example, if a company is not in compliance then the executive team can be charged for any crime their self-driving toy committed under their guidance.
I don't believe this will be effective. Thinking back to the VW scandal, did any executive get punished for this? Same question for the Equifax breach and the insider trading issue.
My 'money' is on people with money figuring out loopholes, like plausible deniability.
Yes, it means that we need to write new regulations with real teeth, and vote out the politicians on all sides of the aisle that continue to punt on this issue.
One of my biggest complaints about the self-driving car space is that real lives are at stake; light-touch "voluntary" rules suitable for companies that publish solitaire clones aren't going to cut it here.
This is a strange question to ask. The regulation is not there to benefit Uber, it is to benefit public good. Very few companies would follow regulation if it was a choice. The setup of such regulation would be for it to be criminal to not comply. And if Uber could not operate in California (or the USA) if they did not comply, it would in their interest to provide the requested information.