We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar

We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar did, when they have a viable example to point to. As best I can tell, no one distinguished Uber from Sidecar when the latter was a legit rival. Example of a typical article that mentioned the three but said nothing about what made Sidecar's case more defensible. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabilities-for-uber-sidecar-and-lyft/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabi... Raising the question that on-the-job injuries for drivers for the three could bring liability to the platform; no distinction for Sidecar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-compensation-uber-drivers-sharing-economy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-co... So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker. Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.