When a government entity sues and seeks a preliminary injunction to halt violation of a statute, it need only show a reasonable probability of success on the merits, and then a rebuttable presumption arises that public harm from the violation outweighs harm to the defendant from the injunction. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63.)  To overcome the presumption, the defendant must show it will suffer grave or irreparable harm.   This decision holds that the rebuttable presumption applies when the government entity seeks a mandatory injunction as well as when it seeks a prohibitory injunction.  This is so even though the court should also apply the rule that a preliminary injunction that “mandates an affirmative act that changes the status quo . . . is scrutinized even more closely on appeal” and is granted only if the right is clearly established.  Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the People had shown much more than a reasonable probability that they would succeed in showing that Uber and Lyft violate AB5 (Lab. Code 2775) by misclassifying their drivers.  The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that the public harm to the drivers outweighed any private harm to Uber and Lyft.  Uber and Lyft had had almost two years to bring their businesses into compliance, but had squandered that opportunity.  The drivers needed the Labor Code protections for employees to draw living wages (and that was so even if meany drivers didn’t want those protections).