The market doesn't tend to work that way. Maybe some people will avoid Uber when they are actually having that one night stand....but you think significant numbers will boycott the service altogether on principle? I've never known that to work.
Hence the need for the bully pulpit. Nobody ever even hears about the one guy boycotting a service. But put a story telling customers how Uber is screwing them over in a major media outlet every week until they change their ways and you have yourself a ballgame.
Is this really supposed to be more effective than an enforced legislation? It might work for one or two big names, but only until people get tired with the news of another bully. And you need it to work for all players, not the top one or two.
If the above does not speak sufficiently: think of the efficiency loss caused by everyone having to watch who's the latest culprit in any market they enter... I'd never thought I'd ever advocate compliance & legislation -- but this is just a perfect case for it, also from an economical perspective.
> Is this really supposed to be more effective than an enforced legislation?
The government is like a lion. If you're having trouble with a pack of wolves, let loose the lion and the wolves will be no more trouble. But from then on you won't be able to own any small pets, you're responsible for feeding the lion and you'll spend the rest of your life having to fear that it will turn on you.
When you have serious trouble in the market (like an abusive monopoly or industries causing fatalities) then you call for the lion. When you spot a mouse in your house you put out some traps and get a terrier. And you're asking, wouldn't a lion be more effective at catching the mouse? Maybe it is, but then you've got a lion in your house. Effectiveness is not the sole criterion.
> think of the efficiency loss caused by everyone having to watch who's the latest culprit in any market they enter...
