Uber as a transport firm in the United States (US) owns a large market share. Bloomberg Eric Newcomer rated it to be controlling between 84 to 87 percent of the US market share. The use by this by the company to have a huge bargaining power in negotiating and entering agreements for transport service provision is an abuse of dominant position under section 2 of the Sherman Act 1890 and amounts to a criminal offence. Courts have interpreted this to show that monopoly is unlawful if acquired through a prohibited act (Letwin 79).
While the above percentages are mere averages, it is clear that Lyft, is much closer to Uber in terms of competition for the market share in certain cities in United States, it is clear that Uber has power to decide which states to operate in. In Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) it was held that the antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce. The actions of Uber of not operating in certain states as Wyoming, South Dakota, West Alaska and Virginia and Alaska no doubt has an adverse effect on commerce.
In some cities like New York, Uber is beating Lyft by a much wider margin in terms of trips taken by the transport company. Between April 2015 and April 2016, Uber completed 168,528 per day compared to Lyft's 26,783 trips, according to Morgan Stanley. This is due to is price discrimination as in some areas, Lyft has a better performance. Such acts are frowned upon by Robinson–Patman Act and regulations by the Federal Trade Commission.
In a bid to ensure that they care competitive in the United States market, Uber has of late been involved in offering of subsidies in an attempt to win the trust of riders and drivers alike. As a result, Lyft has been occasioned a market loss in their efforts to compete with Uber. These practices a will automatically be held by courts to be anticompetitive as they are obviously detrimental (Berlie 639). The locus classicus in this position is United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. 273 U.S 392 (1927) where the per illegality of the price fixing and agreement for prices was upheld as an abuse of dominant position.
In conclusion, the action of Uber as a transport firm amounts to anti competitive practices that go against the antitrust laws in United States. Generally, the antitrust laws are based on legislations, case laws and regulations that though they do not criminalize monopoly, frowns upon and criminalizes the use of the acquisition of monopoly through prohibited acts.