Nobody was forcing Uber to do anything. They were trying to deny agents of public regulatory bodies the ability to assess them. That isn't any kind of 'right'.
If you had LEOs peering into your office windows (legal, but undesirable), wouldn't you want to at least have a blind to try and stop them from peeking?
If it's actually fraudulent, then, yes, you should stop it by suing and getting an injunction against the illegal government action.
If it's just enforcing the law that you are breaking, maybe you should quit breaking the law rather than engaging in elaborate technical means to conceal the violation, and expecting that won't cause additional problems when it is discovered.
Enforcement is not 'fraudulent use'. These analogies are very strained while the thing that took place is very simple.
If a LEO lies to you during the course of an investigation, do you think that you will be able to successfully claim that as fraud?
The labeling can serve as evidence toward the smuggling case without needing to be its own crime.
that'll be like arthur andersen shredding enron's financial accounts. can't investigate if there's nothing to investigate!
Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the "right" to not follow the law.