Oh yes it is… to the extent that you get away with it, without consequences (in that light, getting banned is bad IF you can't also break that law and get away

Oh yes it is… to the extent that you get away with it, without consequences (in that light, getting banned is bad IF you can't also break that law and get away with it). It's much like arbitrage, making money or gaining control of a market by exploiting weakness on the grandest scale possible. IF there are consequences for the behavior, then you've just illustrated one way to fail, perhaps on the same grand scale (see: Enron). If there are no consequences you're just doing another type of arbitrage and rather than being a poor business model you're an unmatchably superior business model that others must emulate or die. Jury's out on whether Uber is the former or the latter. Until that's clear, the CEO will not resign or back off in the slightest, because they can't: it's a strategy of never backing down or admitting weakness in any sense, with the tone set from the top. If they can get powerful enough friends and never face consequences, they win. If they're more powerful than the law, they are the law. We do see a tendency in modern trade agreements to hold entire countries responsible for injuring the profitability of large companies. In that light, Uber bans could be made illegal, under certain conditions, much like banning tobacco advertising can be made illegal.