That would seem to only emphasize my point... if you're planning to be a taxi company, it would seem you'd be even
more likely to fall afoul of regulations if you don't play by the rules designed to cover taxi companies.
In short: I don't think your comment actually addresses my point.
Again, they're basically silent on this topic in the deck, which might be accidental, but feels like an odd omission. If I read between the lines, it seems like they thought that because they avoid street hails, and because it was pitched as an invite-only service, somehow they puts them outside the existing regulatory structure. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that was at best a very naive assumption.