Uber's argument is that the core of their business is the technology which allows them to act as a two-sided marketplace and logistics company, connecting and routing physical goods and people.

Connecting riders and drivers is one thing which takes advantage of their technology but their are others. Connecting riders and scooters, connecting couriers to restaurants and hungry people, connecting people who want to go to the Hamptons with helicopters, etc.

Uber will argue that it has nothing to do with the driving part and the driving is just one of the many uses of their technology.

The difficult part of that argument will be that they have so many rules and regulations that they place on drivers and rides that's it's hard to argue they're just providing a hands-off matching & logistics service.

> which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.

Pretty clever wording by Uber here, I'd say. Although does not make sense to me.

Uber's position here seems to be that they are a technology company that connects drivers with things that need to be driven from A to B (people, restaurant orders, etc.). Not sure I buy that but it sounds like they're willing to ask the courts to decide on that if this goes into law.

i'm guessing they would claim they are an ridsharing platform, with the purpose of allowing drivers and riders to find each other and facilitate the transaction, rather than a taxi service.

the problem with that argument is that they have a lot of control of the driver side of the platform, directly through pricing and indirectly through ratings and access.

Cool I look forward to Uber drivers showing up with a rickshaw or giving piggy back rides.

Uber in India offers autorickshaws. And I've got a vague memory of seeing rickshaws/pedicabs in Seattle (but this could be a false memory).

Paging rayiner for an "actually this is good" take