There are two classes of gig workers whose interests are at odds: the ersatz full time and true part time. The former, whom worker rights activists highlight, is being exploited. The latter, which companies like to talk about, benefit from a high-flexibility additional source of income.
The ratio of the former to the latter increases with density; there is more work to fill the hours. Below a certain level of density, the former cannot exist. It’s absolutely possible that the optimum for New York is not the same as in rural Kentucky, where outlawing the odd job an otherwise stay-at-home parent takes to earn extra cash does more harm than good.
It might kill that special place across town, or at least cause it to reduce hours.
EDITED TO ADD: Something that isn't often mentioned in these discussions is that the existence of businesses predicated on exploiting labour is narrowing the space for businesses that would be willing and able to compensate their workers fairly. Delivery apps are pricing out sustainable business models if they are allowed to skirt labour regulations, just like the common practice of Amazon and other companies treating delivery drivers as independent contractors.
In New York?
> will essentially kill these platforms
It will curtail them. They will need to trim their driver network, which will reduce the number of drivers and increase delivery times. Restaurants and consumers outside high-density areas no longer make sense to cater to. Dropping restaurants who don’t meet minimums will also, likely, be necessary. In summary, this is entirely solved with densification—food delivery in New York predates these platforms.