honor is getting into the weather these and these are similarly situated factually the key distinction distinction which has been pointed out by most recently the seven circuit's decision in october twenty sixth team dressing exclusive right to those taxis and frankly a protectionist right for those taxis to engage in very specific types of transactions adhoc street tells a transaction which industry hail a taxi user and in more broadly i think it's really important in this case to know the the competitive nature of this business and frankly it isn't issue of consumer choice many consumers may prefer to do street hells because of their convenience they could be walking along the choice the seventh circuit decision on this point is is very wrong reasons i think commissioner evans opinion this is a matter of consumer choice rather than as situation where the protection clause has to treat all of these entities exactly the same filed two weeks about two weeks after it was filed the dish record then said they were not similarly situated no course thirteen months later in march of two thousand and sixteen the district court said the situation had evolved but that is fundamentally differently under saying that they are not similarly situated it's also i also want to take a few minutes to address were four of three which is the city of boston rule and the way that rule was promulgated two thousand and eight different police commissioner  preexisting rule which predated the existence and operation of ten cities and which defines a hackney carriage as a taxi or taxi cab and i think that would be clearly established to a regional public official that this rule automatically would apply to to a entrant particularly where on the same day this litigation was filed massive partner transportation regulations new regulations were promulgated that created a third vehicle registration category fourteen in series so a regional public official seeing taxis delivery vehicles and c and c s under mass department regulations treat them all the same i'll reserve the rest of my time they  question your honor and my argument should you is that the city of boston had specific regulations ordinances and laws on the books on why those other cities in fact your honour's will see in my is that that's a good question your honor with respect to literally this is on demand transportation t and cs taxis it's on demand you know hailing from a street or on the street or you're company that taxi out allows the taxi drivers to sign up and provide information to the person that's getting picked out so they have several other helps in addition to return till they just become drivers they just fifth governor baker did sign a new law regulating transportation network companies that being sad the city still has the right to regulate traffic flow and traffic patterns even despite the fact about all th please the court just three brief points first there is an assumption being made when we talk about a rule for three that taxis and t and cs are similarly situated in the first place for the reasons i've previously stated particularly hales they do not hurt to be severely situated and three other courts have also found that to be the case the second even if they are similarly situated there is a rational basis for applying for a three and rational basis is the test as the latest have agreed throughout as primarily a public safety rationale a person with no relationship to a taxi who simply raises their hand gets into on the street requires additional protection for public safety reasons and that is why the city has a longing for school for three