>While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market.
This is a well known phenomenon in public choice economics, colloquially referred to as "Bootleggers and Baptists"[0] after an observation during Prohibition.
In brief, the morally righteous and the morally suspect share a common interest in some regulatory goal. The righteous, or "Baptists," want to make the world a better place, e.g. by restricting the sale of alcohol. The morrally suspect, or "Bootleggers," want the same restriction in place because it protects their source of income, i.e. it is more profitable for a bootlegger to sell illegal alcohol than legal and the illegality of their venture discourages competition.
That being said, I am never convinced by a statement akin to the article's "Deep-pocketed companies like Uber, which has raised nearly $5 billion in venture capital since launching, could surely afford the additional expense of putting drivers on its payroll." Being cash-rich, high-revenue, or any other sign of corporate success does not indicate that arbitrary costs can be imposed with trivial impact. It may be true in any specific case, but it is a bold claim requiring more analysis and backing than "they're rich." Affluence does not indicate immunity to costs, nor does it change any reasonable cost-benefit analysis.
Ninja Edit: An effect we see with this phenomenon is that the "Baptists" often move on to their next righteous cause after securing regulation/legislation against the first vicious behavior, content that they have addressed an evil in society. Authorities can point to the Good Thing they did, and bootleggers continue on with their vicious trade.
I would also like to note that I hope we don't get hung up in the language of morality I have used. I chose the morally heavy verbiage primarily because the name of the phenomenon lends itself to such discussion. I am not herein passing any sort of moral judgment on either side of the issue (in my examples or in the case at hand in the article), merely using the language to help identify the goals and motivations of the actors playing either role. The important thing to note is that, regardless of actual moral quality or efficacy, the "Baptist" believes they are doing good for society at large, and the "Bootlegger" has a self-serving interest. These motivations do not imply that the "Baptist" is actually doing good (intention != results), nor do they imply that the "Bootlegger" is actually doing bad ("It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."[1]).
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
[1]http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html I.2.2