From what I've read, the taxi companies are mad that Uber's cars are acting as taxi's, but aren't paying the upfront cost to get a medallion, use a meter, that sort of thing. It's not the app that is causing problem, it's the unfair playing field.
I find the two companies to be really interesting: they're both competing for roughly the same space (especially now Uber switched to a meter rate model in Boston), but Hailo takes a much more 'softly softly' approach. I suspect one reason for this is that Hailo's been co-founded by taxi drivers, so they're probably more sympathetic to existing market concerns.
Decisions to bury important information like the legal reasons of why the taxi companies are suing is why I think that most media companies are fundamentally broken.
I'm no student of journalism, but shouldn't best practice include guidelines like: "Make the best case for every side of an argument as soon as possible in an article. Do not bury important points that could be made early on in order to force the reader to turn the page or give the impression that one side is being favored."
"The taxi company argues Uber operates a taxi service without bothering with any of the rules and regulations that govern the industry."
I too hate the page breaks in order to get more eyes on more adds - but this article seems fairly balanced to me.
I still think that slanting articles - whether it's to get ad views or whether it's to express the bias of the reporter/publication is highly unethical and should be called out wherever possible.