[joeyrideout]

The post was written by their CLO. They are not trying to claim as such, they are succeeding. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think this legal interpretation of the company is a lie. It seems like the classification is constantly under scrutiny. A legal falsehood like you claim it is would've fallen apart by now.

[FireBeyond]

Lawyers argue all the time. It's not a legal truth because their chief attorney says so. They are entitled to claim (within reason) as much as anyone else is.

And, of course, they will claim the most favorable definition. In other situations, notably when they are arguing against entrenched transit/transport interests, they "become" a transport company. It's a question of which hat fits the day.

[dymk]

FTA:

> But just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it. In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.

Previous rulings have found his statement to be accurate. So you don't have to take his word for it, you can take a judge's.

[stilist]

Those rulings were made without the context of the new law, though, so the results may be different.

[shkkmo]

AB5 just codifies the precedent under which those rulings were made.