If you look at civil disobedience as practiced by Martin Luther King, Jr and Gandhi, it was to highlight injustice by disobeying the law in question, and then accepting the full consequences of breaking the law. Breaking a law you dont like, doing shady things to avoid getting caught, and raising billions in investments is not at like civil disobedience and only cheapens the real civil disobedience that addressed great injustice at great personal cost to the people involved.

"Civil disobedience" is a term and group of actions used when fighting for racial equality during the civil rights movement. Equating that with anything uber, a multibillion international company, does is kind of gross.

I may be wrong but I don't think you can label something as "civil disobedience" when it is done by a corporation or when it is done for profit.

I believe you to be correct in your understanding of what constitutes civil disobedience.

The law makes it pretty clear whether a business has the "right" to interfere with a criminal investigation.

Disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the "right" to not follow the law.

Yeah but Uber's behavior is definitely wrong.

Since you can apply this to pretty much anything, this analysis is neither particularly insightful nor useful. It's a godwining in which you replace Hitler with Thoreau.