The software claim was designed to justify fighting its drivers from getting case study answer labor law protections employees are entitled to, based on case study answer argument that they were totally independent marketers who had freely chosen to acquire Ubers superior program merchandise. Furthermore, not anything in Ubers company model is basically being shared. The only significant financial contrast among taxis and ridesharing is that case study solution latter avoids rules that classic taxis must still obey and depends on billions in predatory investor subsidies. Ubers claim that its growth resulted from customers freely choosing its advanced provider in aggressive markets is fundamentally false. Competitive markets use price and profit signs to help allocate elements to more effective uses. Uber grew because its years of billion dollar subsidies totally distorted those signals, and allowed it to drive more efficient manufacturers out of enterprise.