California’s regulations for self-driving cars were specifically developed for the type of cars Uber Technologies Inc. is sending around San Francisco. Yet the way the law is written could allow Uber to continue testing the cars without following the rules.

Uber launched its self-driving pilot in San Francisco last week, and the California Department of Motor Vehicles quickly ordered the company to stop using the cars until it obtained a permit, under regulations established for companies looking to test self-driving cars. Autonomous vehicles need many miles of driving for the technology to learn and adapt to surroundings so that it can eventually take over the role of driving.

Uber has so far refused to abide by the order, however, saying that the cars it is testing aren't autonomous and therefore not subject to the law. California defines autonomous cars as having “technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator,” and requires companies with cars that meet this standard to obtain the testing permit from the DMV.

See also: Uber drivers go to war against self-driving cars

Uber claims that the wording of the law itself means it only applies to cars that are already autonomous. Uber argues that its cars cannot be on the road “without the active physical control or monitoring” of a human, as its test cars have a driver and an engineer in the front seats.

While the fight centers on the vagaries of the law, experts say Uber’s interpretation isn't what the law is meant to enforce.

Bryant Walker Smith, assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina, said the law is intended to regulate the development of a car that will at one point not need active monitoring, which is what Uber is doing.

“My view of the law that was passed is that it was intended to apply to this kind of vehicle,” Smith said.

Overall, Smith says the statute is for “aspirational” autonomous vehicles. If all companies took it literally like Uber, the statute would likely not apply to any cars in development, as they would have to start out the test with cars that are already fully self-driving.

Uber’s “very literal” argument might succeed if the company were facing a charge in court, Smith said. It doesn't work as well for the current situation, in which regulators are in charge of implementing and communicating their interpretation of the law, he said.

See also: The complicated web of companies that will determine the future of cars

Twenty companies have obtained autonomous-driving test permits from the DMV, including Alphabet Inc. GOOG, -3.42% GOOGL, -3.45% , Volkswagen Group of America, General Motors GM, -0.34% — which has joined with Uber competitor Lyft — and Tesla Motors Inc. TSLA, -10.34%

Uber has specifically used Tesla’s “Autopilot” system as a comparison for its technology, arguing that the semiautonomous features available on the electric cars don’t require a permit and are similar to the current capabilities of its own system. “Autopilot” is considered a driver-assistance platform, though Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has said the company — which did obtain a DMV permit for its testing — has an eventual goal of offering autonomous capabilities.

Tasha Keeney, an industrial innovation analyst at ARK Investment Management, said that Uber appears to be “aggressively” testing its self-driving technology with the goal of eventually creating a fully autonomous vehicle.

“It isn’t self-driving to the point that it is commercially ready, but that certainly seems like that is [Uber’s] goal,” Keeney said.

Still, Uber likely lags behind other developers in its self-driving capacity. Based on reports of media taking test rides in Pittsburgh, Keeney’s firm calculated that humans need to intervene in the Uber self-driving cars about once every 10 miles. Uber would have to report data similar to that in California if it obtains a permit.

Smith sees a few different potential near-term outcomes in California, with the first being a temporary or permanent injunction barring the cars from the road, which the California Attorney General’s office said Friday would happen if Uber didn't cease the program’s operations and seek a permit. If that came to pass, Uber and employees related to the pilot program could be held in contempt if they continued the pilot, he wrote.

Even if Uber does achieve a commercially viable autonomous car through its testing, it would then have to register with the California DMV on forthcoming deployment regulations.

“They’re not buying themselves all that much time,” Smith said of Uber’s fight against the DMV.