Uber is basically a scam transferring money from investors to the company's pockets.

We've seen this scam happen before - the Dot.Com Bubble - when investors were told that "The Old Economy" fundamentals didn't matter any more and it was now "The New Economy" where 'potential' was worth more than 'profits'.

Strictly speaking, Uber is correct: drivers aren't essential to its business. The cash transfer from investors happens anyway. The drivers are merely there, along with the clients, as an excuse to drain investors.

Once the investors wise up, Uber will disappear like it's never been there at all, just like 'pets.com' and all those others.

Seems to me Uber is trying to pitch itself as a subcontracting company that just happens to utilize it's dispatch and subcontracting infrastructure for ride hailing.

Which still makes their claim indirectionist bullshit. Their subcontracting involved investment in building up fleets of vehicles, leasing them to their "contractors", and creates a situation identical in every way that matters to operating as a taxi company. The potential or intent to try to port their business methodology elsewhere does not detract from the fact traffic engineers now have to take them into account when planning out infrastructure.

This is the type of regulation flaunting that has fueled the coming backlash against SaaS providers that supply the logistical infrastructure to make something happen, but hide behind a shield from liability because the actual performer of the task is a "standalone free agent".