Fans at a San Francisco music festival last weekend got a rude awakening in how much Uber and other car services can cost in times of high demand, illustrating the misnomer of the so-called sharing economy, when what these companies are creating at times is a “sucker’s economy.”

According to Gawker’s ValleyWag, some customers in San Francisco paid the equivalent of a flight to the East Coast to take the Uber car service after the city’s big music festival Outside Lands, in Golden Gate Park. Some customers tweeted they were charged from $290 to as much as $470 to go from Golden Gate Park to other destinations in the city, thanks to Uber’s “surge pricing,” which customers must agree to accept, based on an increase in demand.

This is not the first time that Uber’s surge pricing has led to outrage. Last December, during a blizzard in New York, ValleyWag reported Uber was charging more than $100 to drive down the block. In July, the company came to an agreement with the New York State Attorney General to limit its price hikes during storms, in order to comply with a state law passed in 1979 that prohibits price gouging during natural disasters, storms, military actions or other events that disrupt markets.

Miles Suter/Twitter

Uber did not comment specifically on how much riders were charged during Outside Lands.

“Outside Lands brought over 200,000 people to Golden Gate park and many chose Uber as their ride of choice,” said an Uber spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. “Uber was founded with the goal of ensuring a reliable ride, wherever and whenever. Dynamic pricing helps ensure the reliability of choice. And, choice is a beautiful thing.”

Uber, which is privately held, recently raised a total of $1.2 billlion in funding, far more than its two ride sharing service rivals, Lyft and Sidecar, have raised, giving it a total valuation of $18.2 billion. The company, though, has been under a harsh media glare recently, as these car services and other “sharing economy” companies such as Airbnb are under attack as being unregulated in many cities across the U.S. In addition, on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported on the increasingly nasty rivalry between Uber and Lyft

As is typical with the combined hype and scourge over new technology, both sides have valid points. Fans of car service apps like them because the drivers respond quickly and are often far more plentiful than taxicabs. At the same time, they are seen as not really car sharing: many drivers are using their cars to become taxi drivers without having to get official taxi medallions. The drivers see an opportunity, as the companies do, for an alternative transport service; if consumers are willing to pay far more for unregulated but mostly reliable service, let them.

The same is true with so-called home sharing. Pros say that visitors renting spaces in private homes see neighborhoods they would never see, and interact with their local hosts. Those opposed say the home renters should be subject to the same taxation as hotels and have solid liability coverage. Airbnb says it provides its hosts up to $1 million in liability coverage, but insurance experts recommend also checking homeowner insurance policies for coverage.

In San Francisco, for example, additional issues have arisen. The city is going to vote soon on legislation to regulate home renting services such as Airbnb. But the initiative has created a firestorm, with opponents protesting that sites like Airbnb, VRBO and others take some of the limited supply of rent-controlled units off the market and turn them into lucrative vacation rentals. Critics also contend that more of the listings on Airbnb and others are not really locals sharing their homes and renting a bedroom to visitors, but are often competing with hotels.

The recent gouging example of Uber and the fight over Airbnb in San Francisco are just the latest examples of how companies are using tech to make life more convenient, and in some cases, more expensive. Giving these services the imprint of the “sharing” economy is just playing into their hands, making these companies sound altruistic, when really it’s all about providing convenience to those who have, sometimes at the cost of those who don’t.

More from MarketWatch:

These market experts overlook one big risk

Apple's new iPhone exposes 4 stages of stock hype

Whose advice is better: palm reader or financial adviser?