No they haven't. Not all regulations are equal. Most of the regulations Uber has ignored are probably examples of regulatory capture and shouldn't exist in their current form. The regulations Theranos ignored are important, even critical, for patient safety and the integrity of medical testing.
The idea that it's not the person's job to decide which regs to abide by implies that all laws are equal. As GP mentioned, that isn't the case.
Some of Uber's regulatory battles are complex, but many are laughably transparent. France's 15-minute mandatory delay before you can be picked up by hire cars? They didn't even pretend it was about anything other than protecting a monopoly.
If a regulation has a decent purpose that you feel it's not fulfilling (especially safety), you should probably lobby against it. If the regulation's entire purpose is to manipulate a market, it becomes pretty easy to defend ignoring it.