Ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft already won an exception to AB5, mostly through funding what ended up the most expensive ballot measure in the state's history, just to have that apparently struck down by the Alameda County Superior Court [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose.
Directly targeting rideshare users isn't orthogonal to "indirectly" funding truckers fighting AB5 when "Uber Freight" is a thing and Prop 22 already failed (which was their attempt at reaching users directly). They can (and would) do both.
It’s easier to interpret without starting with the assumption that comment replies are for disagreements. It sounds like you more or less rephrased what I said.
What do you mean by “otherwise not unconstitutional?” I suppose the point of the ruling is its unconstitutionality, and the state of California is one of the only places in the world in which voters are free to change that through a constitutional referendum.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Prop-22-the-gig-wor...