I think the key distinction is that for AirBnB and Uber, their law-breaking activities were a key part of their strategy, and from the get-go they strategized and positioned the company to spin a narrative that their circumvention was actually a way to enhance customer well-being.<p>Take Uber, for instance: In most markets where it operates, it clearly violates regulations in place for Taxi drivers. However, they were clever enough and raised sufficient money that their strategy is to grow so quickly in markets that they can establish a significant coalition of riders that can create a political force sufficient to take on the taxi lobby. They (for the most part successfully) show that the policies they are allegedly infringing really aren&#x27;t there for the safety of customers, but rather are policies preventing innovation and better services to sprout up.<p>In the Zenefits case, however, these claims are much harder to substantiate -- or at the very least, they did a terrible job in dealing with them head-on. The perception is that the policies that existed where there to protect consumers, and by circumventing them they not only harm their own customers but create a marketplace of unfair competition.