The third outing with the Supreme Court was about employment rights - were the drivers workers, or genuine independent contractors for whom Uber are merely acting as a booking agent (which the Uber model relies almost entirely on).
The Employment Tribunal, The Employment Appeal Tribunal, The Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court all said "nah fam, you ain't fooling nobody" and the original ET was especially scathing:
> It seems to us that the Respondents' general case and the written terms on which they rely do not correspond with the practical reality. The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common 'platform' is to our minds faintly ridiculous. In each case the 'business' consists of a man with a car seeking to make a living by driving it.
Very very few other businesses get to act so brazenly and dangerously, then get an extended period of time and support to do the bare minimum to qualify as compliant.
Uber made it very clear who the terrible drivers were. It turned it into a real service industry where good service was expected. Suddenly scammers couldn't hide behind anonymity. To this day I would rather pay 2x as much for an Uber than take a regular taxi. That's how much they sucked.
You are defaulting to the US here (and I doubt Taxi regulation in the US is that homologous either tbh given the complexity of 50 states and then cities on top of that).
Taking the country I'm most familiar with (the UK), Taxis fall into two categories (only one of which is technically a taxi by law if not convention - Hackney and private hire vehicles) both are licensed in different but similar ways by the licensing authorities (usually the local council but not always), some of those laws go back centuries.
Also worth noting, in the UK Uber does operate under the Private Hire Vehicle laws and does have to comply with applicable licensing same as any other "taxi" (private hire vehicle) operator.
They tried to argue otherwise and lost (at the UK Supreme Court so it's essentially settled case law) so they are classed as a PHV Operator and must ensure they only use a properly licensed PHV vehicle and drivers and can't pull the "but they are independent contractors" card out when it explodes in their faces.
It was a little more nuanced than that. The actual case was about whether a private hire operator accepting a booking had to contract with the customer as principal, rather than merely acting as an agent arranging a contract between the customer and driver (which was essentially Uber's argument).
The (UK) Supreme Court said "nah, it's you, nice try though".