Or the reification fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

I appreciate the condescension, but saying that a state thinks something when referring to an enforcement ruling from a particular office is very misleading. In particular you can say the state both simultaneously thinks that they are contractors (how the rest of the Uber employees are treated) and it thinks that they are not (the ruling outcome of this one case).

So saying a state thinks something when there are many conflicting internal positions is worthless and just ends up being a tool to push a particular political agenda.