[radcon]

On that note, does it make a difference that they're collectively refusing work rather than collectively setting prices? Uber and Lyft are still the ones actually setting the price.

In the end I don't think it will matter, Uber and Lyft could probably code around this pretty easily if it started to affect their bottom line. When they see 100+ drivers in the same place go offline within X seconds of each other, it's a pretty clear indication that there's coordinated action taking place. They probably have enough data from drivers' phones to see that they're sitting still waiting to go back online.

I just hope they don't decide to make an example out of these drivers by banning them...

[snowwrestler]

While both companies provided consumer-friendly press statements, I would not assume that Lyft or Uber actually cares if this is happening. After all, they also make more money per ride under the scheme. As long as there are enough customers willing to pay the extra cost during surge pricing, drivers and Uber/Lyft would both win.

Speaking of price-fixing.. Competition is what usually keeps prices low in ride-sharing; if Lyft is too expensive, more people will use Uber. But if the drivers of both apps all trigger surge pricing together (in both platforms simultaneously) then it is possible that both platforms will make more money until the fake surge ends.

[lazerpants]

Seems like they could just force a delay of [x] time between individual driver logins. Call it a server side issue or something and make it so each driver can only re-login once every 15 minutes. Then by the time the surge worked the drivers instigating it would be locked out of participating.

[xyzzyz]

Refusing to sell a product or a service below a specific price is literally what setting prices is.

[toomuchtodo]

Sounds like forced labor to me.