Except Uber isn't a cab, it's a private car service, which is generally less regulated. Rates for private car services are generally negotiated between the driver and passenger, and if both parties agree to use Uber's GPS-based software, I don't see what Massachusetts's problem is.
The argument they are making is that both parties are agreeing to traveling a certain distance for a certain price. But the tool which measures the distance must be an approved measurement device in order to prevent fraud.
I can agree to pay my super market a dollar for a pound of apples, but the dept. of weights and measures still validates the scale. That's the consumer protection that the state is arguing for.
Note the whole is it a cab or isn't it argument isn't actually germaine to this complaint (they actually dropped the unlicensed livery service complaint) its wholly based on the legitimacy of the measuring device
If Uber were using flat rates, this problem wouldn't exist. But Uber is actually selling miles-in-a-cab, and the government is rightfully pointing out that due to a very extensive history of businesses manipulating weights and measures to increase profits, the measuring device used to measure miles-in-a-cab ought to be one that has been inspected by the government.
By that definition, no cab companies are cabs, since that is exactly what the cab companies do--arrange trips between independently contracted cab drivers and potential customers.
Under the legal definition of cab services in many municipalities, Uber is a cab service rather than a livery service. In other municipalities, Uber is merely a livery service. In the U.S., each municipality gets to define what a cab service and a livery service are (because that is a local power under the federal system of government).
