Most likely, they aren't Charter Party Carriers -- their purpose and operation in general don't seem like that kind of carrier -- and therefore aren't covered by the laws that restrict what Charter Party Carriers can do, but by entirely different sets of rules.
They're not charging individuals fees. I don't understand all the intricacies of how they're breaking the law (I posted a separate question about how Super Shuttle has been around so long) - but Google and Facebook buses aren't doing it as a business.
I remember when California passed the no smoking law for indoor establishments. One way around it was to make all of the employees of the bar or restaurant an owner in the business - therefore the law didn't apply because you didn't have any employees. Maybe if Lyft just made every user own .00000000000000001% of the firm, that would be a way around this asinine argument.
I also remember bar and restaurant owners saying it would devastate their industry and so on. Still waiting for that particular section of the sky to fall.
That section of sky did fall, but the effects aren't evenly distributed. A few kinds of bars and restaurants are predictably unaffected (or even positively affected) so averaging them all together can produce misleading results. Meanwhile other kinds of related businesses are devastated, but rarely considered in studies of the issue.
Anyway, here's a pretty good rundown of where to look for the biggest fallen pieces of sky:
"Don't look for bingo halls in the anti-smoker studies - you won't find them.
Bowling alleys are also ignored in most of these studies. They have a unique problem - shoes. A smoker can't just step outside for a smoke while wearing bowling shoes. They'd have to change their shoes twice each time they wanted a cigarette. Most of them won't bother. Laurel Bowl, in San Luis Obispo, CA, had been successful for thirty-four years before California's statewide ban. Three Hundred and Eighty-five league bowlers quit because of the ban, which cost the business $200,000 in annual revenues. The place struggled along for another year, then closed its doors."
Most regulations have a minor negative effect on businesses, balanced with a significant reduction in cancer risks it's probably a net win for society.
That would certainly help (albeit at a rather large expense for existing businesses) but probably wouldn't really solve the problem. The core issue is that bowling in a team involves an awful lot of waiting around and watching while other people on your team or the other team are bowling. A hardcore smoker would like to take a few puffs during those pauses while waiting for their turn....and that used to be okay. If the smokers in the group have to take turns running out to a patio to puff, they can't continue to cheer/boo their teammates/rivals and might miss or delay their turn. Which destroys the group dynamic. The bowling alley used to be selling (to some) the experience of smoking while bowling, just as music clubs used to be selling the experience of smoking while listening to a band; taking smoke breaks between sessions of bowling is not much of a substitute.
Sorry about the delayed reply, I often take a break from the internet over the weekend.
just as music clubs used to be selling the experience of smoking while listening to a band
I find it hard tor ead that with a straight face. I was a hardcore smoker when the bar and restaurant ban was passed and I only quit about 5 years ago. I though the ban was a fantastic idea at the time it went into effect and thought the inconvenience of having to go outside to smoke was a perfectly reasonable tradeoff for the sake of patrons and staff who did not smoke and didn't wish to sit in a cloud of others' smoke.
To an inconsiderate smoker anything could be defined as 'the experience of smoking while (doing something else).' I'm afraid I'm not very impressed with your Dave Hitt polemic, which is studded with gems such as:
Business that sell and service air cleaning units are affected. If there are no smokers, there's no reason to buy an air cleaner.
...which is equivalent to saying that air pollution is a good thing because it creates jobs in the manufacture of respirators, asthma drugs and so forth. This is essentially a fancy version of the 'broken window fallacy' in economics.
Then you'd have to worry about securities laws (both California and federal). Also, I doubt there's some sort of employee-owner exception to the CPUC rules.
