[tim333]

Technically predatory pricing rather than dumping which is for products. Probably hard to do them in the US:

>the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole

[lukeschlather]

The two market leaders are losing money hand-over-fist in the hopes of becoming a monopoly. I'd say it's affected competition in the market as a whole.

Heck, if you buy Uber's logic, they don't actually compete with Taxi companies. Lyft is their only serious competitor, and both of them are losing a ton of money (arguably, but I'd like to see a court weigh in) because of Uber's irresponsible behavior.

[maxerickson]

It depends on bit on whether you think a ridesharing brand is a defensible monopoly.

Even if they figure out some onerous legal contract that forces drivers to work exclusively for Uber, other drivers will sign up for a company that charges consumers less and pays drivers more.

They get praise for their logistics expertise, but advanced routefinding using digital maps is literally a commodity (you can pay ~$0 for a route from lots of companies).

[ThrustVectoring]

The brand is not the defensible monopoly. It's having a thick market. Drivers want to drive for Uber because they can expect to find riders, and riders want to order from Uber because they can expect to find drivers.