Introducing some consumer protection measures back into the Uber model may make sense, depending on how it is done. Writing into the law that the only way to ever provide any taxi service ever is exactly and only the exact way it is done today, by what today is de facto a cartel, does not make sense. Since this law is doing a bit of both, it's hard to give a snap summary of goodness or badness, but on the whole, I'd rather do nothing and wait a bit more for real problems to arise before I write into the legal code the impossibility of ever again innovating in the field of taxi-like transportation. (Especially with driverless cars metaphorically just around the corner. Whatever regulation may be desirable there, nobody's currently in a position to write it.)

It is not clear to me that Uber is a huge problem for anybody but an industry being disrupted yet, and that is not only not a crime, it's a feature of the system. (Feel free to correct me in replies, if you like; this is not a permanent state of mind. It really is not clear to me right now that Uber is a significant danger to anyone but existing taxi companies. I've heard a couple of anecdotes, but so far the taxi industry is well able to keep up with "anecdotes" of how they do bad things too, so calling it a "wash" would probably be doing the current incumbents a pretty big favor....)