|
|
|
|
|
|
by bloomburger
2058 days ago
|
|
|
This is where you’re wrong. This would set a precedent. Uber will definitely not renter CA or else it would send a message that other states can follow like California. CA was about 9% or Uber’s total rides before the pandemic, so it is significant, but they wouldn’t re-enter as it would risk the profitability profile of the whole company as the rest of the US adopts similar laws. |
|
|
That's a really good argument. Personally - and admittedly this is purely speculation - I think they would find some creative way to conform to the letter of the law without a drastic shift in business model. Someone elsewhere suggested, for example, something akin to an agency model, where they pay some amount to a sourcing company, and said company then retains a pool of workers that service requests from all rideshare and delivery apps. They could spin it into an opportunity to become said middle man themselves and profit from competitors and/or enter different gig economy verticals. Or they could settle for some middle ground with some loss of coverage but still more or less the same service. Or find some way to devour or partner with the taxi industry proper. Etc.
The thing w/ regulation and precedents is that it doesn't have to be Uber. If a precedent is set by any other company, your hypothetical scenario of risk to profitability profile would affect Uber regardless, so it doesn't seem in their best interest to just part ways with CA and call it a day.
On an opposing note, something else to consider is that the rest of the country (or the world, for that matter), may not agree with CA policymaking, especially as the CA political landscape drifts more and more towards the radical left side of the spectrum.