The law at issue merely codified in statute what the California Supreme Court had long held to be the way the law worked (and added some new exceptions not germane to Uber), so there was no relevant change to the law. So, it's the same legal regime Uber has always been working under, and so the policy change is, no matter what the PR spin is, not actually driven by the new law.
Wrong, the Supreme Court produced a test for use in case of litigation, not to proactively apply to every non-litigant. Codification of the test is a step change, and its litany of incomprehensible exceptions is a strong sign that the test and the law are severely flawed in the general context.
> Wrong, the Supreme Court produced a test for use in case of litigation, not to proactively apply to every non-litigant.
That's...not how law works. The law doesn't adopt a different meaning in litigation than it has in administrative application; when the Court adopts an interpretration/operationalization of the law (which is what adopting a “test for use in litigation” is), it defines what the law is. That's true in general in common law systems, and it's certainly true in specific in that administrative application if California State Law is controlled by how that law has been interpreted by the State Supreme Court.
> Are you suggesting Lorena Gonzalez wasted her time completely?
Making the legal regime more resilient against future change in the composition of the Supreme Court is a thing, whether it's something that justifies the effort expended or not, it's really not my place to say. But AB5 did not substantively alter the status quo legal regime faced by Uber, etc., so any change in practice they shot was not driven by a change in legal regime stemming from the law.
