This ruling is another example of how the courts and regulators are struggling to make sense of the phenomenon known as the gig economy.

That's a little biased. A lot.

"Their drivers are not commodities. They deserve at the very least the minimum wage and holiday pay."

This is the main reason they're not allowed in the Netherlands; it's not about "you're disrupting the market!" but about that disruption coming at the cost of those driving for uber. People working for uber aren't guaranteed a base salary or whatever other benefits you get here in the Netherlands when you have a normal job, so they were told to stop, or fix that. It's also about customer safety -- taxis here need to be driven by someone that's proven to be able to, but uber doesn't want to adjust to that regulation. (ignoring the fact that taxi drivers here are known to be some of the easiest people to buy drugs from)

Same with airbnb here, they're claiming to help you rent out your space if you're gone for a bit, but instead people are renting out places 24/7/365. It's not about protecting hotels, it's about protecting the jobs & housing etc of people that live there. You can disrupt a market, as long as that doesn't come at the cost of something other than other companies.