I'm just not convinced that's a straightforward question to answer. I once worked for a hardware company that outsourced new hardware development to a contractor. We had a guy in house for maintenance, and the occasional hardware bug that propped up, but we only designed a new box once every 5 years or so... it just didn't make sense to have the team in house. We did manufacturing in house, and we had a huge software team... but though our money came from selling the hardware, we didn't do that in house.

As the company grew much larger, we did eventually expand our product line, and did build a team. But for several years, we just had 1 dedicated hardware guy.

Sure; there are always edge cases. Non-straightforward situations like this are exactly the reason judges exist, if it comes down to it.

What a huge drag on people’s livelihoods, making a broad swath of mutually beneficial business relationships illegal until someone goes through a multi year legal battle with the state.

> Uber could not outsource driving if it calls itself a transportation company

And that's why they're not a transportation company - they're a company that matches two sides of a marketplace connecting drivers with passengers.

Or at least that's one of the directions I'd expect their lawyers to look into.