BKBalaji Krishnamurthy@_balaji_km8:05 PM · Jul 16, 2026

Ethan - Respectfully, you are entirely wrong in your conclusions. Uber is investing more than any other company to advance the progress of AVs globally (see: https://www.ft.com/content/564c26d9-489c-435b-88f7-2df388e058d3?syn-25a6b1a6=1) We are responding to misguided legislation that had NO path of succeeding and would have resulted in NO AVs. In NJ, the bill under consideration before Uber's advocacy would have banned BOTH Tesla and Zoox. In DC, it would have banned hybrid networks ENTIRELY. There's always more to these issues than a punchline, and we know it takes a lot to meet cities in the middle, responsibly.

BKBalaji Krishnamurthy@_balaji_km8:39 PM · Jul 16, 2026

I understand your perspective, but here's something for you to consider. While you are specifically focused on NJ/DC, it is important to keep in mind that AV specific proposals have stalled in several additional jurisdictions over the past year. Even as we believe in the promise of AVs, there are legitimate concerns and fears various stakeholders have expressed. It is incumbent on the industry to address these concerns and our proposals are a way to meet those stakeholders in the middle to help introduce AVs to new markets. FWIW, Uber is not the party responsible for the introductory versions of these bills (i.e. we are not behind the efforts to effectively block Tesla in NJ) - we are working to improve existing misguided legislations.