Ten years ago the playbook was outrunning enforcement. Today the smarter operators are asking regulators how they can help them win — and getting paid to do it.
Ten to fifteen years ago, the standard approach to a city government was adversarial by design: scale faster than regulators could react, so that by the time a city tried to shut a platform down, tens of thousands of users already existed who could be mobilized to flood the government with complaints. The user backlash was the actual mechanism — cities backed off because "we do what the public wants," not because the operator won an argument.
That playbook is largely dead. Governments learned the pattern, moved faster, and the political cost of looking outmaneuvered by a foreign tech company got a lot higher almost everywhere.
The current approach runs in the opposite direction: approach government early and directly — "I want to do this, let's work together, how can I help you, how can you help me?" — instead of treating regulators as an obstacle to route around. The flip that matters most: let government take public credit for what the platform enables, rather than making them look slow or incompetent for the platform's own PR benefit. That converts defensive lobbying spend (fighting regulation after the fact) into offensive lobbying (helping write it) — and it makes a platform's position more defensible, because government becomes materially invested in its success instead of opposed to it.
The instinct is to assume this approach only works once an operator already has leverage — enough scale that government has to take the meeting. That's backwards. Working with the right government body — a ministry of labor, for instance — can be the thing that lets a launch start with meaningfully more scale than bootstrapping alone would allow, potentially a couple hundred drivers from day one with government support behind it, instead of a slower organic ramp. Partnership isn't just a defensive move for an operator that's already big. It can be a launch strategy.
This is worth being straight about: there isn't yet a clean, packaged version of "here's the exact first email to send." That's a live question being worked through in real time on a current market entry, not a solved formula being handed down after the fact. If there's a general shape to it, it's closer to a posture than a script — show up early, lead with what you can offer, ask what they need before asking for anything.
Getting close to government does slow a company down substantially — this is true generally, not just here. But the deeper risk isn't proximity itself. It's how the relationship gets structured: collaboration versus control. The test that actually matters is whether government retains leverage that limits real operating freedom — the clearest version of this is whether they can get involved in pricing. A useful reference point is how a company like SpaceX operates: deep government relationships, large contracts and subsidies, but real operating freedom, because the relationship is structured as "we sell them something they want to buy," not government ownership or control of the business. Whether that freedom holds up over the long run is a genuinely open question. This is a trade-off, not a free lunch — it depends entirely on how each specific relationship gets set up.
A short working call — I'll tell you what's worked and what's genuinely still unproven.
Book a working call