I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber.

In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work. If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.