What flies with me is systems that work better than old corrupt systems.
Plainly Uber does a better job overall than cabs, or people would not use them.
How do you define better? They more efficiently match up drivers and riders? Their prices are lower? I would guess these are what you mean. People will be attracted to lower up-front costs.
What about externalized costs? Background checks, auditing of drivers, maintenance requirements... all those "regulations" and "overhead" cab companies endure to remain compliant with laws and provide safety and security to passengers - do you think Uber would have the same rates and responsiveness (and number of participating drivers) if they had the same practices? I don't know enough about the answers to these questions, and frankly, I don't care. I do think you're comparing apples and oranges, and the plaintiff is trying to have Uber bring in some supervision and regulation of its fleet on par with conventional taxi services. Maybe they should, maybe not. Doesn't mean to me that there's an automatic winner and loser in that discussion.
Slashdot regularly lambasts fossil fuels for spreading costs to the populace, but tolerates it as a "necessary" part of any innovative or new business model. This discussion group never fails to deliver.