This topic has been beaten to death, but I'll just add this:
The logic of replacing both hub assemblies together is flawed. The first corner you take with two new wheel bearings will result in uneven "wear". These parts do not work in unison, they wear independent of one another. Typically the left side wheel bearing will wear out faster in RHD countries as the left side of the vehicle is loaded more often than the right. But there's so many different variables at play (manufacturing tolerances, potholes, etc.) it's difficult, if not impossible to predict when one might fail-- mileage alone is a poor predictor.
Sure, you'd typically replace brake or many suspension components in pairs, but that's a poor comparison. The wheel bearings, provided they are in serviceable condition (no excessive play or runout), do not alter the driving characteristics of the vehicle. Having one side with 100k and the other one new makes no difference.
If one wants to replace the other side preemptively because of mileage, it's their wallet. But I can assure you the manufacturers are not going to replace a part that isn't broken when there's no reason to. Personally I'm not a proponent of replacing good parts unless there's some benefit to it like a significant labor savings (e.g replacing water pump during a timing belt service) or the part is ridiculously cheap (e.g spark plug.) On a wheel bearing/hub assembly, there's nothing to be gained as you double the labor to do the other side. You can apply this logic to just about any part on a car and use it to determine whether it's wise to replace parts together or in pairs.
