Why not? That's clearly the point, and that's why it's relevant to this community. I suppose it should probably be in the passive voice, but that's a nit.
The article does not claim this, and the parts of the bill that the article highlights do not appear to unduly target new services. The only statement claiming that Uber is being targeted is in an included quote from Uber itself. If someone would like to have a title that makes this claim, they can write their own post and submit that.
I think protocol on HN is to use the title associated with the article, not to create your own - even if it seems better.
That's not clearly the point. It may be inferred but it's hardly clear. The 1k license seems a bit excessive but some of the other points, registering, abiding by current mileage standards, having insurance...all seem completely valid and like places Lyft and Uber are taking advantage of missing regulation and, to some extent, rider's ignorance of the situation they are in if there's an accident or some other mishap.