>...it's a pretty novel interpretation that financing somehow transfers ownership.
Its not uncommon for lender to be on the title and hold title until the loan is paid then transfer it to you. Hence why if you default they can repo, because you are not the owner, otherwise it would be stealing.
>And where is there any evidence of Uber owning the equipment.
Some drivers claiming they paid for the Uber iPhone, some might have to put a deposit and others getting it free. FWIW every driver I have spoken to in person said they were given an iPhone for free.
As to the cars, I did originally understand Uber was acting as a Lender, it is anything but clear. Moreover, Uber has financing, leasing and rental programs. If you lease a car through the Uber program your payments go to Uber not the dealer or a lender. Eventually there will be a case where the discovery will answer the question if Uber ever found its way onto the title of any of the vehicles being driven by its drivers. Separately, they are currently being probed in CA for at least the leasing practice (not having to do with the IC issue).
And where is there any evidence of Uber owning the equipment.
Financing is done through third parties, not Uber. Not to mention that it's a pretty novel interpretation that financing somehow transfers ownership.