[forrestthewoods]

There is absolutely justification. Local laws are unnecessarily causing harm to consumers. Uber is blatantly ignoring those laws to get consumers on their side. This leads to the laws changing.

Seattle's broken ass cab system proposed creating a ride hailing app a few years ago. They were stopped because no one was willing to update laws. Then Uber and Lyft came in. Those laws have now been changed and the old, broken system is being allowed to update to become slightly less shitty. It's still awful though.

Uber plays a dangerous game. They know the risks. They're willing to take them. I have zero issues with this. I do have issues with anti-consumer regulations that primarily exist to protect entrenched business owners.

[anon1385]

More accurately:

Uninsured Uber drivers are causing harm to other road users. Uber is blatantly ignoring the law to make more money at the expense of the rest of society. This leads to Uber getting punished by the courts. No laws need changing.

[JonFish85]

Uber plays a dangerous game and knows the risks, sure. What about the consumers? They're getting into vehicles that are probably underinsured. Do they know the risks? If they are involved in some sort of accident, do they realize that Uber is going to wash their hands of the incident and point at the "independent contractor"?

[Loughla]

Do you honestly think it's fair and a good idea to break the law, if you believe it's in the consumer's best interest?

[DanBC]

How do you know the local law for every territory where Uber operates?

Because in London Uber could very easily obey the law but they chose not to.