A major point of this article is that Uber skirts regulations by sticking to the letter of the law while violating its spirit, which a lot of people (falsely, in the author's eyes) see as Uber thinking its above the law.
I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit.
I was under the impression that Uber outright broke the law in many places. The author describes how things went for them in San Francisco: the laws never considered smartphone apps, so Uber was able to legally operate as a "limo service." In that particular case, I agree with the author. But I thought that in many other cities, Uber came in and started operating in clear violation of the letter of the law, not just the spirit.
Is that true, or am I just misinformed?