I cannot resist to point out that your assertion that "Uber lies, cheats and steals" rests entirely on logical fallacies. Let's stipulate your one assertion of

I cannot resist to point out that your assertion that "Uber lies, cheats and steals" rests entirely on logical fallacies. Let's stipulate your one assertion of fact, that Uber acknowledged that on one occasion an employee called in rides they had no intention of taking. From that one fact you jump to a Hasty Generalization [1]. We cannot admit your other evidence that "multiple competitors" made the same or similar claim because it's plain Argumentum Ad Populum [2]. Everything else is supposition and innuendo. Please note, I'm not saying it ain't so, just that you did not support it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum