Never really considered this point before. I decided to look into it a bit.

The way Uber and other ridesource companies usually get around all this is that, in California, they are not actually considered transportation services according to the public utilities commission but rather they are a Transportation Network Company. This essentially means established rules will need to be re-interpreted for Uber and the like.

In relation to your (quite compelling) argument, TNC do have to answer to ADA but a little differently. In the first linked document above there is this statement:

“Therefore, we direct TNCs to submit a plan within 90 days of the effective date of this decision to tell us how they plan to ensure that TNCs will avoid creating a divide between the able and disabled communities. TNCs must explain how they plan to provide incentives to individuals with accessible vehicles to become TNC drivers. Furthermore, TNCs should ensure accessibility accommodations for their apps and websites to enable the disabled public access to the same services as clients who are not disabled.” p 56

As a student of urban planning, I look carefully at permissive vs directive terminology in plans and legislation. The wording is mandatory for a plan but suspiciously permissive about the actual accessibility of the service provided through the app.

Either way it looks like the Center for Accessible Technology is at least aware if not actively pursuing this issue as they were the advocacy group that brought up the issue you stated to the commission back in 2013.

Anyways I enjoyed your piece and wish you luck on your endeavors.