[SilasX]

I agree that Uber has ignored some regulation that has a legitimate public-interest justification [1]. But what complicates the issue is regulation has also failed to keep up with technology: for example, it doesn't make much sense to mandate taxi meters when GPS do it better, or to have a phone system for complaints when an app has much more data and a better complaint response time and satisfaction.

So Uber has provided significant positive sum gains on top of whatever negative externalities they've thrown off, which makes it much harder to claim that this is a case of merely avoiding regulations others have to follow. Taxi companies could have done all of positive-sum things Uber did [2], but didn't.

So I don't think that narrative fits the situation, or at least, can't account for than 1/3 of Uber's appeal.

[1] specifically, some insurable events that are generally accepted to be the company's responsibility to cover and not the driver's.

[2] easy-to-use app, removing the tipping dance, clean cars, mutual rating, quick action on complaints, reliable follow-up when a ride is requested, pooling rides, cashless transactions, etc