I wouldn't call "knowingly breaking the law and throwing VC money at the lawyers until the problem goes away" necessarily "figuring out government regulations".

It's worked very well in many markets.

Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. Uber is finding inefficient/protectionist laws and challenging their validity. I think that is better for the overall economy.

Well it ended up getting it legalised in a bunch of places. If it works, it's not stupid!

It's the same thing for practical purposes if it achieves the same aim.

Except that your execs are one pissed off DA away from defending RICO charges.

Companies undervalue low-probability, high-risk events like that.

its not rico... https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

Whatever your animated-gif-filled link says, a highly leveraged company which systematically breaks the law (even in small ways) is going to be vulnerable if someone with leverage decides that they need to file a lawsuit targeting the whole of the organization's activities.

That suit could be conspiracy, it could be RICO applied rightly or wrongly or it could be some other broad and vague statute out there.

Example: Zenefits

Edit: And vulnerable doesn't mean doomed. Plenty of folks continue the approach of skirting the law until they don't have to anymore (Youtube etc). But skirting the law forever it is not a good business plan.

s/it's/isn't/?

My point was exactly that Uber can be construed as a criminal organization and their executives as the leaders of a large, international criminal organization who knowingly pay people to commit crimes on their behalf (that the bosses then profit from) and that their organization's primary business is the commission of such crimes.

Is it still not RICO?

Edit: Im pretty sure they could get money laundering related charges to stick well enough to charge (and settle or bring to trial, rather than dismissed), based on banking with money they know was earned in violation of various state and city laws. Money laundering law is bad (and so is RICO), and often can be applied in counter-intuitive ways by aggressive DAs.

To indict under RICO, you need evidence that the organization is involved in racketeering. (The R stands for racketeer). Racketeering includes things like murder, kidnapping, bribery, and gambling.

With all due respect, unless you are a practicing attorney, you are not qualified to make statements like this.

Money laundering is one of the things specifically outlined under RICO, and why my edit mentions it in particular.

Money laundering???

I have tried to be polite, but you are either incredibly ignorant or you are a troll. There is simply no way that it is acceptable to accuse any company of money laundering unless you have a serious amount of evidence.

I am disengaging from this 'conversation' as it is completely useless.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. I think Uber has been successful at calling the bluff of law enforcement and winning that showdown in many cases.

they have many obama administration people in their leadership as well

That was spot on :)

But if Uber eliminates that obstacle, won't all of their competitors benefit from the lower barriers to entry? Does Uber simply ease the cost of switching--both for drivers and riders?

Yeah. I haven't seen Uber or Lyft do a whole lot to encourage customer loyalty either, I guess because prices are already so subsidized. Uber had actively pushed my away, though, by requiring location services on even when not using the app.

Uber business sales channel offers very little value add, and charges for it. They don't get it yet, and that may be a fundamental mistake. It makes me think they're not as smart as everyone wants them to be.