Here are a couple of her tweets:
History of the law of vertical restraints! Swoon!The article even included a history of the law of vertical restraints! Also note I'm not the only one to make this argument: see, e.g., https://t.co/Ya2n3xWl4O by @Econ_Marshall— Sanjukta Paul (@SanjuktaMPaul) May 20, 2019
She seems like a nice person, her thread begins:
ThreadThis by @A_W_Gordon is the best thing I have ever read by a journalist on the intersection of Uber's antitrust & labor law issues--in business, legal & historical context! (I'm biased because I talked to him about it, yes, but still, I mean it: read this.) https://t.co/6n23Fku75t— Sanjukta Paul (@SanjuktaMPaul) May 20, 2019
Our earlier link to the Jalopnik piece.
The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber (UBER)
Keep in mind this is still just a legal theory, it hasn't yet been tested in court but it sure is a common-sensical reading of the laws.
Not that that always matters but still, a good start.
A decent trial lawyer could get a lot of mileage out of the self-serving contradictions in Uber's various arguments.
Throw in a reference or two to shape-shifting and the litigator should be able to get the jury thinking "Ewww" every time the name Uber is mentioned and, well there you go.
