Company allegedly tried to monopolise ride-sharing business

It was also accused of having secretly booked and then cancelled rides on competitors’ apps


Reuters May 03, 2020
PHOTO: FILE

WASHINGTON: Uber Technologies Inc was ordered by a US judge on Friday to face a lawsuit claiming its illegal predatory pricing and other anticompetitive practices stifled competition and drove rival Sidecar Technologies Inc out of business.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the federal court in San Francisco said SC Innovations, the successor to Sidecar, could try to prove that Uber tried to monopolise the ride-sharing business by crowding out smaller rivals including Lyft or making it harder for them to compete.

A spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Uber declined to comment. Spero had dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit on Jan. 21.

Sidecar launched a ride-hailing service in 2012, and offered the first app to show passengers prices before booking rides and to match passengers for car-pooling.

The company, which was also based in San Francisco, shut down in December 2015, and sold its assets to General Motors Co the following year.

According to the complaint, Uber initially offered above-market incentives to drivers and low fares to passengers to amass market share, and then cut driver payments and raised fares, including through “surge” and “dynamic” pricing to recoup its losses after cementing its dominance.

Uber was also accused of having secretly booked and then cancelled rides on competitors’ apps, under programs known as “Project Hell” and “SLOG,” to induce frustrated drivers and passengers to work with the company.

“At this stage, the court finds Sidecar’s allegations of market power to be sufficiently plausible to avoid dismissal,” Spero wrote.  

Published in The Express Tribune, May 3rd, 2020.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read