“In the period covered in the documents, Uber was embarking on an aggressive expansion in countries such as Spain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium — many of which outlawed paid transport in private personal vehicles. Regulators barged in, conducting raid after raid, in an effort to prove Uber was flouting the law, while police conducted stings to catch drivers in the act.”

emphasis mine. I can give you a ride to the airport but you can’t pay me for gas or time.

"paid transport" here refers to carpooling for profit. Paying gas money and time for a one-time or occasional ride to the airport doesn't result in profit [1] nor make the driver a chauffeur.

[1] There's also maintenance, depreciation, insurance, registration/license fees, and likely more.

perhaps, but it appears (given the Regulators behavior) that the burden would be on me to prove that I didn't "profit" (or intend to profit), and they could also come after you the passenger for violating the taxi-monopoly-laws.

The problem isn't Uber, it's the laws.

Which behavior do you refer to? How many people has this happened to? How hard was it to demonstrate non-guilt?

The only English language resources I can find deal specifically with people involved with Uber and Uber-like systems.

The problem isn't Uber, it's the laws.

Yes, I read your earlier statement. Now what do you mean by the Regulators behavior?

You seem to be missing the point but I’ll play along - multiple warrantless searches, attempts to entrap drivers, et al as described the article.

The article mentions nothing about warrantless searches or entrapment.

The word "warrant" appears once: "Uber turned over records not initially available to authorities after they produced a second search warrant."

The word "trap" does not appear at all.

Is this the "entrapment"?

] The company, which had received a tip that an enforcement action was coming, learned that authorities were using people that Uber described as “mystery shoppers” to order rides with the intention of impounding the vehicles when drivers arrived.

It doesn't seem to fit the definition of entrapment.

> During this era ... government raids occurred with such frequency that the company distributed a Dawn Raid Manual to employees on how to respond

Doesn't sound like they broke the law. This seems like the corp equivalent of refusing to answer a police officers questions without counsel present.

This sound more like obstruction: "I would give them access to the computer but in the background we cut access"

Do authorities in Amsterdam have a legal authority to access Uber information that may not be in country? It sounds like Uber was cutting off such access unless / until such legal authority could be made clear to corporate officers.

A police officer can ask you any question they want, but you'd be a fool to answer without legal counsel present.

That depends on the warent

Greyball crosses the line. Period. End of story. That that was tolerated is just jaw dropping to me. Who even implemented such a thing, and walked away with the most astonishing case of lack of foresight as I have seen in all my years?

Non paywalled link: https://archive.ph/pwXKm