> If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant. It would be relevant either way, but in this case it's a state department ruling on a case brought by

> If this ruling were limited to NYC, that'd be relevant. It would be relevant either way, but in this case it's a state department ruling on a case brought by a group of NYC drivers against Uber's operations in NYC. So yes, it is actually totally fair to point out that Uber's role in this case is exactly the same as the role any other FHV company plays.