You could have made the information asymmetry arguments perhaps a few years ago. But these days Uber's practices are fairly well known, so no one has to go in blind.
It’s all about edge cases, ie what specifically happens when a customer throws up in your car.
That’s not something the average person off the street is going to ask. But many are going to be pissed learning they will reimburse you for paying someone to clean your car but not the time it takes you to do it yourself, nor the lost wages until it’s clean.
If you take the inside view and look inside Uber, you might find that they handle each specific edge case according to specific rules.
But taking the outside view, you don't need to know all the specifics. You can just check Uber's general reputation (or lack thereof perhaps) for fair dealings with drivers. That general reputation will reflect how they are dealing with those edge cases in general.
Just like in the 2010s you could be reasonable certain that a job at Google meant you got free food, even if you didn't know the exact specific rules about what food would be available when and where.
Reputation is something companies manage, which introduces bias.
If people get a worse impression than reality they can release more information, but if the public has a better impression than reality then they have zero incentives to say anything.
Information asymmetry isn’t about people knowing nothing. If you’re offended a job at some salary you know roughly how much they are willing to pay but you don’t know the minimum you can negotiate for. Similarly, companies don’t know the minimum you’re willing to accept but they do know quite a bit about market rates.
