I'm not sure why you'd assume they're operating legally. Violating the law was the USP for Uber, Airbnb and various other valley startups. It's a proven model.
The others just took risks of civil penalties. There are criminal penalties if you evict someone forcible and unlawfully.
It’s really not even worth the civil penalties. The tenants can stay on your property longer and even when you do evict them, lawyers love suing landlords on a contingency basis.
Criminal penalties the gig workers would be liable for. I'm sure this startup has hired the best lawyers to make sure that liability doesn't extend to them.
But if you tell a bunch of thugs to do a job with ill specified parameters, and they try to solve the problem by harassing store owners, you can blame them for obviously going outside the bounds of intent, right?
You run a legitimate protection business. Of course you wouldn't extort money by breaking store owners' legs. ;)
Setting up a situation where there is risk of breakdown and structuring that situation so if the breakdown happens, all of the responsibility falls on the gig workers who lack the means to defend themselves and none of it falls on the company making all the money is an already understood pathology of the gig economy. Uber has spent so much time, effort, and money trying to convince legislatures and courts that they don't have any employees providing ride services for a reason.
There is really only one guideline to eviction procedures after you have won the court case - at least in my state. You must wait for someone from the sheriff’s office.
The sheriff is responsible for removing the person. You and your crew that you have hired is responsible for removing items and changing the locks. You aren’t responsible for any damage to personal items or what happens when you put them on the side of the road - where you are legally required to put the items at least for a single tenant house.
