Could complex gamification of payment structures amount to worker misclassification? i.e. if an Uber/Lyft driver must meet a complex set of job requirements in

Could complex gamification of payment structures amount to worker misclassification? i.e. if an Uber/Lyft driver must meet a complex set of job requirements in order to earn a reasonable wage, e.g. driving at particular times, in particular places, accepting certain minimum percentages of tasks assigned, etc... ...might it not be more appropriate to call these folks employees than contractors? The counterargument could be that if they are allowed to participate in the platform without "playing the games" so to speak, then they aren't "job requirements", but if it's only possible to earn a reasonable wage by playing, could it be argued that they should be considered as such? EDIT: I see a couple of comments in this thread stating that they are employees and not contractors however I believe that is not the case (i.e. that Uber has fought to maintain the contractor classification and won so far) ? EDIT2: Ah, I now see that there have been some recent court cases going the other way, at least in California (https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17308178/uber-lyft-drivers-california-court-classification-dynamex https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17308178/uber-lyft-drivers...)...not sure if any change has actually been effected yet?