> And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling.

> And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. I have never understood this argument. I know it's one of Lorena Gonzalez's talking points, but it makes no sense. The legislature and the judiciary are part of a system of checks and balances. If a court makes a decision we don't like, we pass legislation to change the statute that the court used to make its decision. Case in point: when the courts ruled that UC Berkeley are pollution (due to noise impact), we amended CEQA to say that people shall not be considered pollution: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 Instead of changing the statute upon which the court's decision was based on, what AB5 did was make it even worse than what the court ordered. There were all sorts of exemptions as hand-outs to favored political groups.