> Many start-ups define “working with” regulators as simply accusing them of holding back innovation. But Mr. Laws said regulators were trying to balance many competing interests. “This assumption that they’re always bad in my experience has been almost 100 percent wrong,” he said.

My lesson, as a former engineer in a regulated industry who later did a stint at a federal agency: you'd be shocked by how many people, not lobbyists but real people, have priorities other than maximizing the rate of new technology deployment. Most people see "disruption" as a bad thing. This is a fact that serves the interests of incumbent industries, but it's a fact that exists on its own apart from those interests.

It's undeniable that incumbent industries have figured out how to use those regulations to protect themselves. And it's great to see start-ups that are willing to fight these fights and enter regulated industries. But I think "rules don't apply to us" bravado like Mr. Chesky's comments are counter-productive. It's rare that a regulation is wholly a sop to some politically-favored industry. There are legitimate interests in play, and dismissing those interests out of hand and needlessly antagonizing those that have different priorities is a sure way to turn the process into a very expensive legal battle.

In this case, I think it's a miscalculation to think it's merely a fight against the hotel industry. It's not. It's a fight against condo and co-op owners. In New York City, the land of $15 million 3-bedroom units, that's a class of people you don't want to needlessly antagonize.