[URSpider94]

There's a fine line between predatory pricing and "forward pricing." It's a very common, and valid, business practice to price a good or service at a level that will be profitable in the long term, rather than try to be marginally profitable on every single transaction. For example, on UberPOOL or LyftLine, the companies are betting that they can support the reduced pricing for shared rides when they get a large enough customer base. The only way to prove out that business model and grow the scale is to offer the discount pricing for those rides from Day 1.

In my mind, the situation is a little more suspect if they are subsidizing standard rides in the market. However, at this point, there are two major competitors in almost every US market, Lyft and Uber, so they are making the market between them. Whether or not either of them is losing money, if they raised their prices at this point, they would suffer a precipitous drop in market share. Sooner or later, they'll find an equilibrium. Taxi companies can choose to ante up and participate in the market, or fold and get out -- that's how it goes. From a competitive standpoint, it takes two to tango, it doesn't take three.

[98239232]

Would that mean that if two price-dumping companies collude, a third party cannot sue them -- because there is "competition"?

[dragonwriter]

> Would that mean that if two price-dumping companies collude, a third party cannot sue them -- because there is "competition"?

No, if they are actually colluding, that is an illegal combination in restraint of trade independent of whether that collusion involves dumping, and anti-trust law provides both private causes of action (for harmed competitors) and public causes of action (for the government) to address such collusion.

[stale2002]

Basically, yes.

Anti monopoly laws are meant to protect consumers, NOT other businesses.

It is very hard for a company to get in legal trouble for price dumping, because as it turns out, price dumping in many cases is freaking awesome for consumers.

[mikestew]

Collusion's another thing all together, and not the thing you're replying to. Complicated, as always, but in short the scenario you describe might very well be illegal.