Because a regulatory moat keeps competitors out because it is a hassle and has increased compliance costs. There seems to be 0 leverage in fingerprinting and I would argue unlikely to provide a stepchange improvement in safety. So Austin would have to establish a way to fingerprint people and verify them which 1) Lyft and Uber have already, 2) WOuld be paid for by Lyft&#x2F;Uber&#x2F;Taxpayers 3) WOuld put a huge moat around the onboarding process and add a fuckton of friction.<p>I agree that cities should be able to enforce laws like this. I disagree with this one, but not their right to. However, to the degree Lyft &amp; Uber provide leverage, they certainly have the right to leave and take their value with them in the hopes Austin reconsiders.