They claim to be ride sharing apps so that they are not blatantly breaking laws that protect taxi monopolies. Its a backdoor they have been using to try to open up this industry.
I was literally banned from all taxis in 2008 in SF as I would have to call four companies for a cab to my place in the presidio as they would never show up.
I wound up getting the numbers of various private black car drivers whom I could call upon at a moments notice to deliver me anywhere and they always showed up.
If these laws were designed to protect "consumers" I don't know what the fuck they are protecting!
I've used uber since they were born, and I've only ever had nothing short of a wonderful experience with them.
Whilst they may have certain business practices which people can complaint about - uber should be the text book example of how you disrupt an existing service.
Uber could be regulated as a taxi service, just like pre-existing taxi services are. Consumer rights could be protected by the law.
However, in most places, there is a medallion system for officially-licensed taxis, which basically imposes a very high tax on anyone trying to operate as a taxi service.
Because Uber couldn't function within the medallion system, it was also shut out of consumer protection laws. But that doesn't mean things have to be that way. The problem is that allowing Uber around the medallion system essentially destroys a bunch of value already stored up in medallions.
Also, where else should someone editorialize, if not a comment on a social news site?
Uber fought pretty hard against consumer protection laws here in DC. For example, DC requires cabs to carry highr insurance and to get cars inspected more frequently.
I do wonder about their handling of issues like insurance.
Regulations are, in general, extremely efficient at creating monopolies and utterly inefficient in protecting the customer.
Regulations are what keeps your food from making you sick on the spot, what keeps the air you breathe from melting your lungs, what lets you buy a new widget in confidence that it won't burn your house down. Regulations are extremely effective at protecting customers from abusive, greedy entrepreneurs. They're not perfect, and yes, with enough private money flowing into the process, they can create monopolies. But generally, they're good at their job.
An important difference between this and things like pollution is that in the case of pollution the negative effects of the seller's malfience don't fall upon the purchaser but upon third parties who don't have any say in the matter, what's called an externality. That's another case where we really do need regulation for a good result.