Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is actually just that straightforward. In the jurisdictions where Uber has already admitted to using Greyball to avoid local authorities (eg Portland), they did so to evade laws that were directed specifically at their operation. It is true that Uber consistently claims that laws that apply to commercial livery do not apply to them--whether it was ever true is debatable. Courts have not been sympathetic to this cl…
Looking at the legal definitions of evasion and obstruction, I don't see anything that applies, especially considering the typical use cases. Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering. Evasion - for Portland, they haven't been formally approved from what I read. Doesn't necessarily mean that because they aren't formally approved that the…
18 U.S.C. 1001 is a great place to start, but doesn't necessarily tell you what the current interpretation of the law is. To determine what that is, you need to determine which cases are leading and how they were interpreted, then you need to go back and apply it to the facts. This is a weaker offence, but seems more likely to stick if raised.
From there you can move into RICO specific issues at 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 (emphasis on 1961-1963). From 1961 you can find the offenses that trigger RICO. Check out section 1510 specifically. I think the RICO link here is weak, but I haven't gone through all the case law.
Spoilation is another good jumping-off point for understanding the relevant principles.
The concern with any of these one-off avenues, though, is that they're individually non-comprehensive. Note that the terms in each of these three segments are different despite the fact that they're talking about subtle variations on the same thing.