Nope. You would just need to show that they're an effective and convenient means of avoiding certain consumer- and citizen-unfriendly situations, and that the benefit outweighs any negative side effects.
Whether or not there are theoretically better methods to protect consumers is irrelevant unless they're practicable.
The problem you get into instantly with that is: unfriendly according to whom (which bureaucratic panel?), and deciding whether the benefit outweighs the negatives according to whom?
You make it sound like it's a scientific process. Once you hand it over to a political system, that goes out the window. See: New Jersey / Tesla for a nice recent demonstration.
Have you ridden in a taxi recently? Are you at all familiar with the taxi medallion racket (and why millionaire medallion owners are the only ones who benefit from this)? Have you ever tried to get a taxi to pick you up during rush hour or outside of a taxi hot spot?
>Are you at all familiar with the taxi medallion racket
Yes, I am, at least in NYC. They are there to provide some consumer protection.
I will be speaking of New York.
First of all, a medallion isn't strictly required to operate a taxi-like car (for hire vehicles). It only affords them the permission to pick up passengers who flag a cab off the street. You are allowed to operate what is called a "car services" or "livery cab" too, they are allowed to only pick up and service people who call ahead to arrange the ride. Since the summer of 2012 livery cabs may pick up people who hail a cab outside the borough of Manhattan to serve undeserved populations (excluding the airports). Having a medallion means you are required to pick up any passenger who hails a cab, the first one you see, no matter if they are drunk, homeless, disabled, black, going to an undesired destination or otherwise "undesirable" passengers. Having a medallion also strictly regulates fares no matter what kind of car your medallion taxi is, including flat fees to get to the major airports. Taxis are regulated to look a certain way so you know you're getting into a licensed taxi and not a serial killer van. There are also very regular inspections of the vehicle to make sure it is up to safety standards. The authorities conduct undercover operations that ensure taxis are following the rules. The license plates bear a variation of the medallion number so that police can easily identify violators. It can be said or argued the limits of number of medallions is because there is limited space on the streets and you might not want them to be mostly taxis at the expense of other vehicles, before the medallion system there were at one time more taxis than taxi passengers. You also don't desire taxi drivers working very long hours to make a profit with excessive competition, because they might become fatigued and fall asleep at the wheel. Also the cost can facilitate the funding to enforce the regulations.
Is this the best system? I don't know, but it is there for a reason.
I rode cabs all the time in Chicago and New York. Fast and cheap. I don't see the big deal about paying twice as much for a service like Uber. Also, are there no millionaires at Uber?
Whether or not there are theoretically better methods to protect consumers is irrelevant unless they're practicable.