> "Employee of the Month" posters around America beg to differ.

"Employee of the Month" posters are hung inside your own offices rather than anywhere a competitor would be likely to see them.

> In this case the drivers who provide the service are expected to come back, hence the vetting and rating. It establishes a relationship that extends beyond a single trip or "job".

The relationship between the driver and the rider generally doesn't extend beyond the single trip. They'll probably never see each other again. The relationship between the driver and Uber may continue, but so does the relationship between a plumber and Yelp.

It seems like you're arguing that eBay sellers should be considered the employees of eBay if they do most of their sales through eBay.

No, I'm not comparing an open marketplace or a weak aggregator with the Uber app. The argument of the French court is pretty clear.

Uber pretends to find clients for contractors but treats them like employees due to three proven powers they hold over drivers: the power to give instructions, the power to control the execution, the power to sanction non-compliance with the instructions given.

What do you mean a weak aggregator? eBay sellers have ratings, have their ads ranked and surfaced based on rating and other algorithmic criteria determined by eBay, and sellers must comply with instructions given by eBay w.r.t. listing, selling parameters, payment, contact, delivery, diverting sales off platform, etc., or be deranked, delisted, or kicked off the platform for non-compliance. Literally the same thing, except with goods + services instead of services alone.

Yet sellers are not employees. Your hue and cry that it is different does not compute.

In fact, you see this degree of control or more over participants in every market, forum, or platform operator, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, the list goes on. Just because driving a car seems different does not make it actually different.

Parent seems to pivot to an argument about monopoly instead. That's a slick backslide that should be called out.

I don't see how I'm pivoting to an argument when I'm explaining the decision. Call out the French judges who clearly lack your insights and deeper understanding of local laws.

I'm giving the context of the French legal case, you're arguing from an American market stand point. Yelp or eBay are barely blips in France, Lyft doesn't even exist. Maybe Uber drivers are contractors in the US, but not according to French laws and market conditions as proven by the court decision today.

The monopoly argument doesn't even work. Lyft provides meaningful and direct competition. Observe that the large majority of the fare goes to the driver and not to Uber or Lyft.

Lyft doesn't operate in France.

And yet the majority of the fare still goes to the driver, because they still have other competitors there.