[tomerico]

I actually don’t think that point B is the ones they failed off. They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them.

The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers. For example, they don’t allow users to choose their own drivers. They also don’t allow drivers to price their ride.

[sudosysgen]

>They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them.

This doesn't stand. If YouTube hired every single YouTuber as a contractor it would be forced to reclassify them as employees. Because Uber doesn't facilitate connections between two third parties, it facilitates connections between clients and their contractors. If drivers on Uber were neither contractors nor clients and if contractual obligations were between drivers and riders then it would make sense.

[droidno9]

> The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers.

No, the court didn't address prong A at all because it found that Uber/Lyft could not possibly satisfy prong B of the ABC test.