I think the distinction is that Uber is claiming to facilitate a contract between the driver and the user. In your examples, not being allowed to refuse work (I would guess) was given as terms of the contract, whereas the argument against Uber is that Uber is setting the rates that drivers are allowed to use to enter into a contract and penalizing them for not entering into a contract. That said in the system where contracts are made between drivers and riders if a drivers accepts a ride and then cancels it that would be a breach of contract and I think Uber would be right to use that as a reason for delisting drivers from their marketplace.

Uber is the market maker, so it’s a three part contract. Between driver and rider; between driver and uber; between rider and uber.

Part of the market making function is matching prices offered and taken. Theoretically Uber is chopping off all the drivers with too high a price and riders who want too low of a price and “forcing a rate” is really just matching all the compatible rates that fall into a close range (“the algorithm”).

Maybe Uber could do more to show all the incompatible rates. But I think they delist drivers who would ask too high.

I see confusion crop up here around the term government every now and then. In America, we have our 3 branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) and we call the collection of all 3 the "government" whereas in general I think Europe uses the word "state" for that.

Yeah, for general use, EU "government" is best translated as US "administration", I believe.

A lot of people don't include the judiciary when they say "the state", I believe as the courts are independent and serve as a controlling instance that should (in theory) reign in the state when it oversteps.