Uber’s top lawyer pledged that its drivers will remain independent contractors, despite California’s passage of a bill that hinders companies from claiming that workers are not employees.

AB5 “does not automatically reclassify any (ride-hailing) drivers from independent contractors to employees,” said Tony West, Uber chief legal officer, in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.

Instead, he said, the bill sets up a higher bar for companies to prove workers are contractors — but he thinks Uber can clear that hurdle.

AB5 codifies and clarifies a 2018 California Supreme Court ruling called Dynamex that uses the “ABC test” to determine employment status. It says workers are employees if (A) they perform tasks under a company’s control, (B) their work is integral to the company’s business and (C) they do not have independent enterprises in that trade. The bill passed the Senate late Tuesday 29-11, and the Assembly approved a version with the Senate amendments 56-15 on Wednesday. Gov. Gavin Newsom has indicated he will sign it.

“Just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it,” West said. “We continue to believe that drivers are properly classified as independent. ... We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court, as necessary, just as we do now.”

His central argument focuses on the “B” part of the test: “Drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces,” West said.

West’s words seemed in part aimed at Wall Street, where investors fear the impact on already money-losing companies of reclassifying drivers. Barclay’s estimated that making drivers employees could cost Uber $500 million a year and Lyft $290 million. “Our business is incredibly adaptable and has withstood enormous challenges,” he said. However, he acknowledged, “there could be an impact if we fail the test” for determining employment status.

Uber will also continue to advocate for what he called a compromise: a law creating a new category Uber calls “network drivers” under which drivers would stay independent contractors but be able to receive wage guarantees and some benefits. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have pledged at least $90 million for a November 2020 ballot measure seeking that if they don’t achieve a legislative deal.

Lyft likewise does not plan to reclassify its workers, although it sent drivers a message warning that AB5’s passage means “you may soon be required to drive specific shifts and stick to specific areas.”

“Our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of (ride-hailing) drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits,” Lyft said in a statement. “We are fully prepared to take this issue to the voters of California to preserve the freedom and access drivers and riders want and need.”

Postmates and DoorDash did not directly answer questions about whether they would reclassify couriers.

Vikrum Aiyer, Postmates vice president of global public policy, said in an email that the company will continue to follow California law, while continuing discussions with labor and lawmakers about “balancing worker flexibility with worker protections.”

“DoorDash is committed to passing a new law — in the legislature or at the ballot — that would create benefits and protections for Dashers, including a guaranteed minimum wage with the opportunity to earn more, access to benefits, and protections against discrimination and sexual harassment,” the company wrote in a statement.

Newsom, who wrote a Labor Day opinion piece in support of AB5, has said he also supports seeking alternative solutions.

“As it relates to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, others, some of the gig platforms, these remain ongoing negotiations, and regardless of what happens with AB5, I am committed, at least, to continuing those negotiations,” Newsom told the Wall Street Journal this week, saying it behooved the state to “stay at the bargaining table, to continue to negotiate.”

But Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, blasted Uber, saying its proposal would reduce workers’ rights and its intention to not reclassify is “insulting.”

During a recent meeting at her office, West told her of Uber’s intention not to reclassify its drivers, she said Wednesday.

“It’s insulting for these companies, these billion-dollar companies, to walk into an office and say, ‘We don’t care what the law is. We’re going to continue to break the law and we have enough money to deal with this. Now we don’t have enough money to pay our workers minimum wage, but we have enough money to put money in an account for an initiative, to pay our executives hundreds of millions of dollars, and apparently to break the law and settle lawsuits,’” she said.

West said in the press call and in a contentious exchange of tweets with Gonzalez that Uber intends to follow the law.

No, @LorenaSGonzalez, that’s just not accurate. You asked me explicitly in our mtg whether @Uber planned to “follow the law” and I told you then as I said again today: @Uber will follow the law. The ABC test is the law of CA; we‘re subject to it today and will continue to be so. — Tony West (@tonywest) September 11, 2019

Uber’s attitude spurred Gonzalez to add a last-minute provision to AB5 allowing the state attorney general, city attorneys of cities with populations of over 750,000, and local prosecutors to sue companies that misclassify workers, she said.

That provision may end up being the prime enforcement mechanism for AB5. California agencies such as the Labor Commission, Employment Development Department and Franchise Tax Board could also pursue cases, but they suffer from tight budgets and understaffing. Many of those cases may happen as individual workers file claims for unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation. Such one-off cases would not effect sweeping transformations.

“The Labor Commission is overworked, unfunded and incredibly slow, so not a huge potential for significant change,” said James Brown, a partner at Duane Morris, a San Francisco firm that represents management in labor cases. He “absolutely” expects city attorneys to prosecute. “This gives more teeth to do that,” he said.

California city attorneys expressed willingness to jump into the fray.

“The state doesn’t necessarily have the resources to handle every case,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera in a statement. “City attorneys, district attorneys and other local prosecutors are a force multiplier when it comes to protecting workers and consumers. It makes sense to have effective enforcement. You do that by providing local prosecutors with the legal tools to do the job.”

He noted his record of taking on cases about worker pay and benefits. He has already filed several cases against Uber and Lyft, seeking more information about how they treat their drivers and their impact on city streets.

In Los Angeles, City Attorney Mike Feuer said through a spokesman that he “would welcome the additional authority and would carefully review and analyze any potential case for possible litigation.”

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it cannot comment on any potential or ongoing investigations.

Several tech companies and trade groups protested the new powers for cities to sue over AB5, calling it “capricious and at odds with the rest of the bill” in a letter to Newsom and legislative leaders.

“This could translate to hasty enforcement actions that are politically motivated and may harm hundreds of thousands of working people in California,” said the letter, signed by the Bay Area Council, TechNet, Internet Association, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates.

Uber has already faced battles in court and in arbitration over its employees’ status. West said it has sometimes prevailed, citing a handful of cases. In public filings this year, Uber said it would pay between $146 million and $170 million to settle 60,000 driver arbitration claims over misclassification. This year it settled a class-action misclassification case with 13,600 drivers in California and Massachusetts for $20 million.

“Uber is no stranger to legal battles,” West said. “I think that’s one reason I have my job.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: csaid@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @csaid