[bryanlarsen]

Which they absolutely do. AFAICT, Uber doesn't subsidize rides in Europe because predatory pricing is illegal there. But they do in new markets in the US and used to subsidize heavily in China, which opens them up to charges of dumping, it seems to me.

[67726e]

> because predatory pricing is illegal there

Legality hasn't exactly been a problem to Uber's expansion. Why would this particular situation be different?

[DavidHm]

There's a bit of a difference on which government body enforces which rule.

In quite a few countries, taxi rules are governed by cities - so the municipality government is the enemy.

Anti-monopoly/ predatory pricing rules are at least national level - and if you are unlucky you can go against the EU itself, which historically has not been afraid to slap companies with gargantuan fines that would never be allowed from the pro-business USA SC.

[Aissen]

You might want to read this: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-bigg...

This is well above any fine from the EU.

[pavlov]

Could be because the European Commission is known for giving multi-billion-dollar fines to foreign corporations for anticompetitive behaviour?

Uber might feel that the risk-reward ratio is not good enough here to be acting in bad faith.

[masklinn]

According to the GP they specifically don't do that in the EU.

[legulere]

Uber has lots of problems with legality in Europe. In Germany it's basically nonexistent. Note that the regulation for taxis in Germany really makes sense (for instance background checks for drivers).

[an_account]

Dumping is for products that are being exported. Uber isn't exporting anything.