Where I'm living, we're having some controversy with Uber and Lyft and the taxis. We do *not* have the super-high license costs of NY or even Victoria, and most cabbies own all their licenses. Most of our cab companies are employee owned, as well.
The regulations we do have, though: criminal background checks, commercial insurance, requirement of training to support the disabled (and subsequent participation in subsidized transport programs for the disabled), 24/7 operation (for the company, not individual cabbies), and required service to the entire city.
Both Uber and Lyft started operating here without any of those requirements being met, so the city said "um, no." Lyft sent a rep (who was not from their legal team, just a sales rep or...something) to a town hall meeting about it whose primary argument was "we're not a cab company, so it doesn't apply to us." The city's argument was "not directly, but you're operating like a cab company, so you're subject to our regulations." And back and forth it goes.
I'm not entirely sure who's right (although the whole "hey look you can't just skip picking up disabled people" part seems kind of important) but what does strike me as distasteful and a little sketchy is that nobody from either company either researched any of this before they started operating, or if they did, they didn't bother to have a discussion with the city beforehand. Seems like due diligence, and they probably could've gotten an exception if they'd made their case beforehand (there are enough tech-friendly alderpeople to lobby on their behalf) but unfortunately the shoot first, ask questions later methodology set up a lot of ill-will.
It's just weird that they're working that way.