Right, so I agree those are examples of grounds on which you should be able to challenge a law (unconstitutionality, conflicts with a law of higher jurisdiction). It's important for those to exist, but they should be limited.
What I take issue with is quotes like the one in GP. "The law is improperly implemented, because it would force companies to pay workers for any time logged into the app." So what? If the city decides workers should be paid for time spent getting their phones repaired, the companies should have to do that to. I don't know what the legal process here is but there's clearly too much of it.
Another choice quote:
> For instance, why would the agency choose to purposefully exclude companies that only facilitate grocery deliveries from its study and rulemaking, when those that facilitate both restaurant and grocery deliveries from local businesses would have these rules apply to them?
I don't know. Why does it matter? People often complain that government regulations aren't able to keep pace with private industry, but it's because of this BS slowing everything down that they can't keep pace! Let's empower the government to actually make rules and give them responsibility for the consequences.
Some of Ezra Klein's recent podcast episodes are weighing on my mind here, particularly https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...