I don't see where you're getting that "bias" accusation. The subtitle of the article is literally written from the company's perspective ("A stunning court rul

I don't see where you're getting that "bias" accusation. The subtitle of the article is literally written from the company's perspective ("A stunning court ruling puts Uber and Lyft in a tight spot"), and not the drivers'. In fact the benefits to drivers as employees don't even get treated until the end of the second paragraph, after the author has explained things like the already-filed appeal. Honestly, I think objectively I'd look at this as very much sympathetic to the employers, if I had to assign bias (though honestly it's fairly neutral). As far as the law goes: this result was coming for sure, the only surprise here is the fact that it happened via injuction. The California "AB5" law under which the suit was filed is a new law from last year, and it was very much written with the intent to make gig economy positions into "employee" relationships. There's a link in the article to this explainer, which is pretty good: https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...