Technology

If Uber Really Sabotaged Lyft, Should That Be Legal?

If the effect of a free market is companies spending time, money and pretentious white board sessions figuring out the most creative way possible to f**k your competitor, who does this benefit?

By  
on

I have a hard time taking Medium too seriously, but this morning a story that appeared in my Facebook feed on Uber and Lyft caught my eye.  Now, unless you love MBA speak, you’ll have hard time making it through the whole post, but amidst all the economics babble, there is this little gem:

Uber decided to target interaction failure on Lyft by contracting third-party agents to use disposable phones to hail Lyft taxies. Before the Lyft taxi arrived at its pickup location, the Uber-contracted agent would cancel the ride. With so many cancelations on the Lyft platform, drivers would become frustrated driving for Lyft and, in some cases, switch to Uber. A smaller number of drivers on the Lyft platform meant longer waiting times for traveler. This would, in turn, frustrate travelers, eventually spurring them to abandon the platform.
So according to legend (there is zero hard evidence presented), Uber was not content on outperforming the competition, they actually spent time, resources and energy sabotaging Lyft’s business.  Now, I have no idea whether this is true, but Uber has developed a reputation for questionable tactics.
My question: is this alleged practice legal? After some basic low level issue spotting, I couldn’t come up with the elements for any tort or crime. Tortious interference? With what contract? Let me know in the comments section whether you come up with the elements for anything other than “being super sleazy.”

Sponsored

Which brings me to my next point. Let’s assume nothing here is unlawful, should that be the case? I’m as capitalist as they come, but that’s because I think competition tends to make the product better. If the effect of a free market is companies spending time, money and pretentious white board sessions figuring out the most creative way possible to f**k your competitor, who does this benefit? And, and as a policy, does allowing this behavior tend to put in place the kind of people we want running big businesses that affect all of us? I would argue no.
Let me know if you agree.  Would love to hear from you on Twitter, in the comments section or by email.

Zach Abramowitz is a former Biglaw associate and currently CEO and co-founder of ReplyAll. You can follow Zach on Twitter (@zachabramowitz) or reach him by email at zach@replyall.me.

Sponsored

CRM Banner

Topics

, , , , ,