New York City has defeated Waymo, and the taxi lobby is the reason


TL;DR

Waymo is blocked from NYC by Mayor Mamdani, the taxi lobby, and labor unions. Governor Hochul withdrew her statewide robotaxi proposal after outcry.

Waymo delivers more than 500,000 paid rides per week across 10 US cities, raised $16 billion in February, and is expanding internationally to Tokyo and London. It cannot operate in New York City.

The reason is not technical, it is political.

As the New York Times reported this week, opposition from local politicians, labor unions, and an influential taxi lobby has stopped the Google-owned robotaxi company from entering the country’s largest and most lucrative ride-hailing market. The roadblocks are structural, not temporary.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

New York Governor Kathy Hochul introduced a budget proposal in January that would have legalized commercial robotaxi pilots across New York state, excluding New York City. A month later, she withdrew it. The pushback from driver groups, transit workers, and state legislators was immediate and overwhelming.

Based on conversations with stakeholders, including the legislature, it was clear that the support was not there to advance this proposal,” a spokesperson for the governor told CNBC. The reversal killed Waymo’s most promising regulatory pathway into the New York market.

Newly elected NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani has made his position clear. Mamdani, who went on a hunger strike alongside taxi workers during his earlier political career, has declined to renew Waymo’s testing permit, which expired on March 31. The permit, approved by former Mayor Eric Adams in August 2025, had allowed Waymo to test eight Jaguar I-PACE vehicles with safety drivers in Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn.

No collisions were reported during the entire testing period, according to NYC’s Department of Transportation. That fact has not changed the political calculus.

Our strategy remains the same,” Waymo’s global head of public policy Justin Kintz told the New York Times. “We want to meet people and governments where they are.

We know that some of them will take more time than others,” Kintz added. “But we’re committed to earning trust.

The company has spent at least $1.8 million lobbying New York state officials since 2019, according to state records, and recently retained The Parkside Group at $15,000 per month to lobby on autonomous vehicle legislation. The money has not moved the needle.

The standoff reflects a broader tension in the robotaxi industry. Waymo must approach each state and city individually for permission to operate, a patchwork regulatory environment that gives local politicians effective veto power. Legislation has stalled in at least eight states, including New York, Virginia, Oregon, and Minnesota, even as 18 states now allow fully driverless commercial operations.

Waymo’s technical record in New York was clean, but its broader safety record is more complicated. The company issued its sixth recall this week after robotaxis drove into highway construction zones 13 times across Phoenix and the San Francisco Bay Area.

A rider told CBS News they thought they were going to die. Waymo offered three free rides worth up to $40 each.

The recall pattern gives ammunition to Waymo’s opponents in New York. New York Magazine argued that what could reverse the Mamdani administration’s resistance would be proof that the vehicles are safe, beyond the company’s own statistics. That is difficult to demonstrate when the company is simultaneously pulling its fleet off highways because the software cannot reliably detect cones and closure signs.

The economic stakes are enormous. Waymo is deploying its new, cheaper Ojai robotaxi and targeting one million weekly rides by the end of 2026, with plans for more than 20 additional cities including international markets. New York City, where over 100,000 for-hire vehicle drivers operate and the taxi industry generates billions annually, would be its single most valuable market.

But the city’s taxi medallion system has already been through one near-collapse, when Uber and Lyft decimated medallion values from over $1 million to under $200,000 a decade ago. Taxi drivers who fought back from that crisis are not interested in another disruption. The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which represents roughly 28,000 drivers, has framed the fight against robotaxis as a labor rights issue.

The competitive landscape is shifting around Waymo while it waits. GM is rebuilding its autonomous vehicle program after shutting down the $10 billion Cruise division. Tesla has launched a limited robotaxi service in Austin, and Amazon’s Zoox operates in San Francisco and Las Vegas.

None of them are in New York either, which suggests the city’s resistance is not Waymo-specific but industry-wide.

For now, Waymo’s $16 billion war chest and 500,000 weekly rides have not purchased entry to the one market that matters most. The company’s strategy of patience and lobbying may eventually work, but in a city where taxi drivers have political allies in the mayor’s office, the state legislature, and the labor movement, “eventually” could mean years.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

Meta stripped NameTag facial recognition code from its AI app one day after WIRED exposed it on 50 million phones. Meta says no decision has been made.

Meta removed nearly all traces of an unreleased facial recognition system from its smart glasses companion app on Friday, one day after WIRED reported that the software had been quietly embedded in an app installed on more than 50 million phones. The feature, which Meta internally called NameTag, was designed to convert faces captured by the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses into unique biometric signatures and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. WIRED also found that faces the system failed to recognise were cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is “purely exploratory,” adding that no final decision has been made on what to do with it. That characterisation sits uneasily with the evidence WIRED documented. The version of Meta AI published the day of WIRED’s Thursday report contained several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition, a process for running the NameTag recognition pipeline, and a “Person recognised” alert the app would have shown if someone were identified.

Friday’s release stripped all of it out, along with a folder where the app would have stored the cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognised faces. Meta did not answer WIRED’s questions about why the code was removed or whether the changes were planned before the story was published. A few fragments remain in the latest version, including an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognised person’s profile, pointing to parts of the system that are no longer there.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The gap between Meta’s public statements and the code WIRED found is the central tension. Before the Thursday report, Stone dismissed the findings by writing that the company could not answer questions about how the system would work because “the feature does not exist.” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, called the reporting “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Yet the code was functional enough to include three AI models, one to detect faces, another to crop them, and a third to encode them as biometric data, all embedded in the companion app for a product already at the centre of a mounting privacy crisis.

Meta declined to answer ten questions WIRED posed before publishing, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles NameTag uses, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognised people, and whether that data would ever be sent back to Meta’s servers. The company also did not respond to questions about whether it was building NameTag for blind or low-vision users, or to criticism from privacy advocates who warned the system could let stalkers and abusers identify strangers in public.

NameTag first surfaced in February, when The New York Times, citing internal Meta documents, reported that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as this year. One internal memo reportedly described releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted by other concerns. WIRED subsequently found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been built into the Meta AI app as early as January, months before any public acknowledgement, adding another layer to the company’s pattern of shipping first and disclosing later when it comes to its smart glasses.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty programme at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the removal does not undo the original decision to ship the code and pointed to it as evidence that consumer privacy needs stronger legal protection than Congress has been willing to provide. The Massachusetts House of Representatives last week unanimously passed a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions including a private right of action allowing aggrieved users to sue. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said.

Meta’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement,” Crockford added. “Companies like Meta prioritise their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.” Whether a code removal prompted by investigative reporting constitutes a victory or merely a tactical retreat depends on what Meta does next, and on whether the regulatory pressure building on both sides of the Atlantic produces enforceable consequences before the feature quietly returns under a different name.



Source link