[jakelazaroff]

> In this case Uber offered you $x. You agreed to $x.

When did they agree on $X? There's no contract between the drivers and Uber stating they they will work for a given amount.

The app sets rates based on supply and demand. Uber offers them $X. The drivers decide they don't want to work for less than $Y. If demand is sufficient, Uber eventually offers them $Y.

Surge pricing is basically a negotiation between company and driver. Just because the drivers have found a case in which they have extra leverage doesn't make it wrong or fraudulent.

[ummonk]

Cartels colluding together to artificially reduce supply in a market is often considered illegal market manipulation. That lyft is acting as a middle-man to set market-clearing prices here doesn't change that.

[jakelazaroff]

This was brought up elsewhere in the thread, and it's a valid concern. But consider that this might instead be a strike. Drivers want to be paid $Y, so they refuse to work until Lyft agrees.

I'm not sure where the line is between the two. But given that the market in question is the drivers' labor — and the ongoing question of whether the drivers are employees or contractors of these multi-billion dollar companies — I'm inclined to consider this "labor organizing" rather than "price fixing".

[ummonk]

Yeah, and I'm not sure what's described in the article need even be considered "labor organizing". It seems to be just drivers exercising their power to not drive if the market rates aren't high enough. It seems like the weird signing off from the app actions wouldn't be needed if Lyft had better provisions for drivers to enter the rates that they're willing to provide rides at.