If you went to a recruitment agency, would you expect them to send you to interview at every single company regardless of if they think that the company would be interested in hiring you?

Clearly agencies do discriminate who they match with each other. I would say that is the entire point of agencies infact.

> you expect them to send you to interview at every single company regardless of if they think that the company would be interested in hiring you?

I expect to be matched with every available role and an attempt to be made to represent me to them (and they to me). The disclaimer that they are looking for X Y or not Z is part of that. There is a practical issue muddying the metaphor which does not apply to the rideshare matching technology.

> Clearly agencies do discriminate who they match with each other.

That needs to be explicitly outlined in your contract with an agency. An employment agency is legally prohibited from doing that. This is the heart of the legal matter, imo.

Crucial difference: recruitment agency matches based on criteria that customer and contractor provide, because they work for both as an agent.

Agencies don't match based on their own internal criteria. That would recharacterize the relationship between the agency and the contractor, flipping it around so that the contractor becomes their agent.

> How is that relevant?

User experience is incredibly relevant. The entire purpose of the platform is to match drivers and riders. If it can do that more effectively, it has become better as an independent platform.

> The entire purpose of the platform is to match drivers and riders.

That's fine, but we're talking about legal relationships here, not the facilitating product. If you are going to assert you are legally acting in an impartial role, turning around and claiming partiality for one party (the riders) invalidates that position.