"They are proactively denying service to all LEOs." No, that would be fine. They are instead, pretending to serve them and deliberately misleading them :)

This is the "it's okay to not answer questions, it's not okay to deliberately mislead"

LEO interacting with an app is not same as if it was a person. LEO is not conducting an interview with Uber when he uses the app. UX is not legally accountable response.

To whom even Miranda warning will apply to ?

Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody. The fact that it's an App is irrelevant: the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.

> Miranda warnings only apply to when you are in police custody.

Or in a custodial interrogation as per wikipedia[1]. My point is not every interaction, even if you are a person, is a custodial interrogation. I can stop talking. I can move away. Or even joke (Not recommended). It would not have any legal repercussions. LEO has to warn me the mode of interaction has been changed to serious from courteous.

> the App was designed with a feature created with the explicit purpose of disrupting a police investigation. They intended to disrupt an investigation, and as a direct result of their actions the investigation was disrupted.

First, the purpose and intentions are allegations yet to be proven in court.

What I guess the Uber can say is these features are design to deny serivce to all LEOs wheather they are on investigations or not. Uber cannot even know if some investigation is taking place. Which I can empathize with. No one wants LEOs up in their shxt if they legally can avoid them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning