Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Transportation

Uber Has a Playbook For Sabotaging Lyft, Says Report 182

Posted by timothy
from the ethics-schmethics dept.
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes The folks over at The Verge claim that "Uber is arming teams of independent contractors with burner phones and credit cards as part of its sophisticated effort to undermine Lyft and other competitors." Interviews and documents apparently show Uber reps ordering and canceling Lyft rides by the thousands, following a playbook with advice designed to prevent Lyft from flagging their accounts. 'Uber appears to be replicating its program across the country. One email obtained by The Verge links to an online form for requesting burner phones, credit cards, and driver kits — everything an Uber driver needs to get started, which recruiters often carry with them.' Is this an example of legal-but-hard-hitting business tactics, or is Uber overstepping its bounds? The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat — if not more so — than any other industry out there.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Has a Playbook For Sabotaging Lyft, Says Report

Comments Filter:
  • Illegal (Score:2, Informative)

    by gurps_npc (621217)
    If their contracts are reasonably well written, I bet they are guilty of at least a misdemeanor.
    • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)

      by belmolis (702863) <billposer&alum,mit,edu> on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:32PM (#47760609) Homepage
      A misdemeanor is a criminal offence. Breach of contract is not a criminal offence.
      • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)

        by bloodhawk (813939) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:48PM (#47761075)

        Well it appears they have entered into the contract with the explicit purpose to disrupt their business, it is arguably fraud or at least tortuous interference, it could be argued as either a criminal or civil offense.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by triclipse (702209)

          Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.

          (What, thy spell checker hath not the finesse?)

      • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)

        by Solandri (704621) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:49PM (#47761083)
        Breach of contract is not a criminal offense. Entering into a contract with the intent to breach it from the onset is fraud, and a criminal offense. Obviously the threshold of proof for the latter is a lot higher.
        • Obviously the threshold of proof for the latter is a lot higher.

          You mean like entering into said contract with burner everything, provided in a kit with instructions on how to avoid methods designed to detect a high likelihood of said contract breach?

      • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

        by taustin (171655) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @07:29PM (#47761297) Homepage Journal

        Signing a contract with the specific intention of violating it can be. It can also be a felony, depending on the amount of money involved. If Uber is involved in coordinating this, in theory, they could end up facing RICO charges as a criminal syndicate.

        The kind of thinking that leads to this kind of dishonesty is why the taxi industry has been so tightly regulated for so long.

        If they're willing to do this to each other, to cost each other money, imagine what they're willing to do to you, the fare, who have money for them to take.

        • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @09:21PM (#47761871)
          Yeah. I really don't get the nutjobs around here who run around bitching about how Taxis need less and less regulation. It's like they have no idea what it was like before the regulations were put in place. It's not like some politicians got together and conspired over the course of several decades to regulate an industry for the sole purpose of being dicks. Those regulations were instituted because taxi drivers and taxi companies were doing incredibly unethical things that were causing damage to both people and to the economy.
          • Uber and Lyft are both much cheaper than traditional "regulated" taxis, and this scheme only cost the other company and driver. So as a consumer, why do I care? For comparison, look at New York's taxi medallion system. All it has done is raise the entry price to astronomical levels, which leaves the consumer paying outrageous prices and the drivers making very little. You are being naive if you think laws that generate money for government and protect old guard businesses are not because politicians and com

            • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

              by davester666 (731373) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:37PM (#47762479) Journal

              well, what happens is that non-Uber taxi's go away, then you get Uber charging higher and higher prices, and pay their drivers less and less.

              It's basically rebooting the taxi system.

              Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Only now with computers.

              • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)

                by dandelionblue (2757475) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @10:58AM (#47765105)

                People don't realise how costly monopolies are. I work for a UK hospital, and have worked in the department that's responsible for purchasing all of the medicines the hospital uses. We have an online system that tells us for any given drug that generic A is the cheapest at £0.50 per box, generic B is £0.60, generic C is £1.00 per box and generic D is £5.00 per box. If every hospital buys generic A's levothyroxine, then generics B, C and D will just stop producing this medicine, because there's no market for it - and then if generic A wants to charge £20.00 per box, they can, because they have no competition to bring the prices down and the hospitals need to buy levothyroxine.

                So instead, the hospitals are grouped into purchasing regions, and one region will buy generic A's levothyroxine, one will buy generic B, and one will buy generic C. (Generic D doesn't get a look-in because its prices are considered unreasonably high). The hospitals that were made to buy the more expensive levothyroxine will then be told to purchase the cheapest simvastatin, and the middling-cheapest flucloxacillin (while the people who bought the cheap levothyroxine will buy the more expensive flucloxacillin), so no region is out-of-pocket overall.

                And yet, when I've mentioned this to people, they seem to think this is unnecessary, and all the hospitals should just buy the cheapest version of every medication. Here's what happens when a company is given a monopoly and decides not to play nicely with its customers:
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea... [telegraph.co.uk]

            • Uber and Lyft are both much cheaper than traditional "regulated" taxis, and this scheme only cost the other company and driver. So as a consumer, why do I care?

              Well you should care, because if you get into an accident, you're paying on your own. That's what the family of this poor girl hit by an Uber driver found out [bizjournals.com].

              A key aspect of Uber's business model is that it claims it is not a transportation provider, it does not employ any of the drivers accepting rides on its platform, and it does not accept liability for their actions. The state Public Utilities Commission in September voted to require Uber to get a $1 million per incident commercial liability policy, bu

              • by berashith (222128)

                I think most regulated taxi companies are likely in the same insurance avoidance plan as Uber. A medallion owner can "rent" the cab to a driver as an independent contractor. The taxi company provides a way to offer fares to drivers, but they will not place an obligation to the driver. The driver is free to pick up fares on their own. This places the company in a position to argue that it is not responsible for the actions of the driver, as the driver is not an employee and not acting under specific directio

            • by ktappe (747125)

              So as a consumer, why do I care?

              1) Because hopefully you're a moral being and recognize that this is immoral, wrong behavior on Uber's part.

              2) Because in the long run this is going to cost you money. If Uber runs Lyft out of business, you can be sure Uber will be able to raise its prices. Further, even if they don't, this is raising Lyft's costs and they will pass those on to you. Or Lyft won't have a taxi available when you need one because it was on another Uber-induced wild goose chase.

              But I really

          • As with many things, some regulations are good, and some are bad (if that idea gives you problems, then you need to reconsider your life).

            With taxis, we can clearly see two kinds of regulation:
            1) Regulations that make customers (and drivers) safer and less likely to be ripped off.
            2) Regulations that are designed to limit competition.

            Obviously, we want to keep the first type of regulation, because they achieve good results. We want to reduce the second type, because they drive prices up for everyone an
          • by evilviper (135110)

            Those regulations were instituted because taxi drivers and taxi companies were doing incredibly unethical things that were causing damage to both people and to the economy.

            But that doesn't stop them, or later politicians, from abusing the power they've given themselves, to start squeezing every dollar they can get out of it, and/or to raise huge barriers to entry to keep out competitors and give their buddies a practical monopoly in the industry.

            For example, NYC strictly limiting the number of medallions t

          • Yeah. I really don't get the nutjobs around here who run around bitching about how Taxis need less and less regulation. It's like they have no idea what it was like before the regulations were put in place. It's not like some politicians got together and conspired over the course of several decades to regulate an industry for the sole purpose of being dicks. Those regulations were instituted because taxi drivers and taxi companies were doing incredibly unethical things that were causing damage to both people and to the economy.

            What I really don't get is the nutjobs (looking at you) who don't understand where Taxi regulation has ended up. It's easy to say how bad it used to be but now we have the end game of any regulatory regime where entrenched players totally control the "regulation" in order to tilt the playing field in their favor and erect barriers to entry that are all but impossible for a newcomer to overcome.

            It's shameless. In NYC you have to buy a "medallion" in order to have a taxi. Hey, sounds easy, right? I mean,

        • by jopsen (885607)

          ...they could end up facing RICO charges as a criminal syndicate.

          I really hope the prosecutors office opens a case, and jails an Uber CEO. The alternative taxi services are great, but if they don't fall in line, they'll be regulated as tightly as taxies..

          The kind of thinking that leads to this kind of dishonesty is why the taxi industry has been so tightly regulated for so long.

          If they're willing to do this to each other, to cost each other money, imagine what they're willing to do to you, the fare, who have money for them to take.

          Exactly... It's beyond my comprehension why Uber is this stupid... This kind of move is exactly what will get them prohibited.
          Besides there is plenty of room for growth through the simple act of providing a better service than taxis...

          If I was Uber or Lyft management, I would not dare this... and I would strike very

      • If they get away from this and this is how low the bar is set, I can imagine the established taxi service with a central dispatch system will employ the tactic on the orignator, and have some backlash protection quickly able to blacklist blocks of cell numbers on throw away accounts and whitelisting many bars and other public access phones.

        Blacklisted - Do not respond, long drive to arrive.. Trac Phone number or Magic Jack number, or already abused number.

        Tenative, unknown new customer on questionable prefi

    • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msauve (701917) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:38PM (#47760649)
      Tortious interference.
    • Dunno if you can apply a criminal statute to it, but there has to be some precedent formed around taxi companies getting borked out of a fare that way, or perhaps something similar to how pizza delivery was once crank-called... it would depend on the locale, though, and I doubt you'd find anything beyond local laws to support it.

    • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Funny)

      by asmkm22 (1902712) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:46PM (#47760685)

      Except what will happen is Uber will come out and say that after an internal investigation, they found a few rogue employees had the program up on their own time, and Uber has now put a stop to it, etc.. It's how these things work. It's really no different than getting cut off while driving, tracking the plate number through the DMV for a physical address, and then setting up your stripper friend to show up while during their family dinner.

      We've all done that.

      • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Funny)

        by GrumpySteen (1250194) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:50PM (#47760701)

        It's really no different than getting cut off while driving, tracking the plate number through the DMV for a physical address, and then setting up your stripper friend to show up while during their family dinner.

        If I'd known it would cause strippers to show up for free at my house for dinner, I'd have started cutting people off the moment I got my driver's license.

      • by mi (197448)

        Except what will happen is Uber will come out and say that after an internal investigation, they found a few rogue employees had the program up on their own time, and Uber has now put a stop to it, etc..

        This only works for government agencies, who are "investigated" by legislatures with all of the concomitant political theater — not private companies, who have to work with courts.

        One more good illustration, why government should be responsible for as little as at all possible, BTW.

      • by rahvin112 (446269)

        If their employees did it they are responsible for it.

        I'd be surprised at this point if Lyft doesn't sue them and use this story as an excuse to get discovery on their entire email system and website.

    • by Type44Q (1233630)
      It's entirely a moot point: any potential "criminal ramifications" would be dwarfed in significance by the PR backlash if it were determined that these accusations were valid. I'm guessing they're not, simply due to the fact that:

      A) Uber has already been called-out for fucking with Lyft in this fashion (whether there was any veracity to those accusations, Uber was already "tried and convicted in the online court of public opinion") and is unlikely to be dumb enough to continue to employ such potentially-ri

  • Not Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:29PM (#47760571)

    The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat

    If more money than the partial cost of gas changes hands it is no longer sharing.

    • by msauve (701917)
      Because there are no automobile costs associated with depreciation, storage, maintenance, insurance, registration, etc?

      Come to think of it, that sounds like that new carless driver Google's been working on.
      • Re:Not Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jklovanc (1603149) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:57PM (#47760757)

        How about this. If you are making a profit from taking someone where they want to go it is no longer sharing it is working.

        • by eepok (545733)

          This is correct. It's only carpooling or "sharing the ride" if it's non-profit. That's why taxi-riding is not a valid form of "rideshare". The only REAL carpool/rideshare app I've seen is called Carma (https://carmacarpool.com/). Reimbursements are automatic per GPS and specific to the IRS mileage reimbursement. More people in the car? Cool -- it splits the cost automagically.

          • by whoever57 (658626)

            It's only carpooling or "sharing the ride" if it's non-profit.

            That's one possible definition. Let me suggest another: It's only sharing if the driver would drive to the same (or very nearby) location without the other people in the car.

    • by Pope (17780)

      Correct. There is no such thing as the "sharing economy."

  • by xevioso (598654) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:33PM (#47760613)

    that Uber is really opening itself up to legal risk by doing this. This is essentially organized fraud. It's one thing to intend to purchase a lift and then cancel it at the last second, but by actually organizing mass cancellations when you really have no intention of purchasing a ride, you are really going down a path of massive fraud. I

    • by crbowman (7970)

      And when they conspired with others to commit a crime did it also become a RICO crime? (I must admit I don't know what the hurdle is to make something RICO)

      • by jopsen (885607)

        And when they conspired with others to commit a crime did it also become a RICO crime? (I must admit I don't know what the hurdle is to make something RICO)

        I'm left wondering the same thing... I would really like to see a weeks jail time for some Uber managers, contractors and employees involved.
        Seriously, as an employee organizing this shit you have responsibility...

  • by c0d3g33k (102699) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:35PM (#47760629)

    or

    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

    I think the the Talking Heads and The Who said it all.

    My view: If you catch the crest of the wave of the various "sharing economy" services that are popping up, like AirBnB or Uber, you will likely have a good experience. But as they grow and other pressures come to the fore, thus poisoning the well, it's time to get out and move on.

    • by msauve (701917)
      "And you may ask yourself
      Where is that large automobile? "
    • by Daetrin (576516)

      "If you catch the crest of the wave of the various "sharing economy" services that are popping up, like AirBnB or Uber, you will likely have a good experience. But as they grow and other pressures come to the fore, thus poisoning the well, it's time to get out and move on."

      So if you get in early you'll get a good ride, but if you get in late you'll be taken for a ride?

  • by Assmasher (456699) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:36PM (#47760631) Journal

    ...or am I missing something?

    • Nobody is directly profiting from these actions. I think proving a fraud charge would be pretty tough.

      And it's not theft of services because they're not actually getting any service.

      And as much as we wish it was, "being a dick" is not illegal.

  • by drolli (522659) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:40PM (#47760661) Journal

    I always thought that rules are for cowards (if you belied the Uber etc. lobbyists). The good thing about bein a taxi is that the situation in this case would be pretty clear, i guess.

  • by tylikcat (1578365) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:45PM (#47760677)

    '"What’s simply untrue is that not only does Uber know about this, they’re actively encouraging these actions day-to-day and, in doing so, are flat-out lying both to their customers, the media, and their investors," the contractor said.'

    Okay, so it's implied that was is untrue is that Uberdoesn't know about this, but that's certainly not what was said...

    (Which is not to dispute facts, mostly because I don't have facts to dispute. Though I would like them - I've enjoyed using Uber, but this would certainly encourage me to steer clear.)

  • ToS violation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MoFoQ (584566) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:45PM (#47760681)

    As much as I hate to see it used, a Terms of Service (ToS) violation and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may still apply especially since they are using tactics to avoid detection (aka use of "burner phones" and credit card numbers)

    It may also be a violation of the various credit card companies' ToS as well.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      The use of burner phones and supplied credit cards simply seems to be an anti-detection tactic.

      The documents posted on TheVerge seem to boil down to, "Book a ride on Lyft, and use that ride as an opportunity to preach switching to Uber while you have a captive audience."

      The documents posted only mention having to cancel if you get the same driver responding to you after you've attempted to proselytize them already -- and suggest you should use Uber to move about town so that happens infrequently.

      Doesn't see

      • by MoFoQ (584566)

        From https://www.lyft.com/terms [lyft.com]

        You further agree that Your Information and Your interactions on the Lyft Platform shall not: be false, inaccurate or misleading (directly or by omission or failure to update information);

        • by mythosaz (572040)

          As long as I'm getting a ride and paying for it, I'm imagine I'm also free to try to proselytize.

          But I can certainly see the other side of it.

          • As long as I'm getting a ride and paying for it, I'm imagine I'm also free to try to proselytise.

            But you are not paying for a ride, right? You are just giving a donation to the nice guy who gives you a lift when they went into the same direction, right? If I'm the nice guy giving you a lift, and you behave like an ass, you wouldn't mind getting thrown out of my car, right? I mean it's not a regulated taxi, it's private people. Or so they say.

  • Rinse, Repeat (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @05:56PM (#47760751) Homepage Journal

    Hilarious. No, not the shady tactics - the fact that companies like Uber and Lyft whine about being regulated as taxi services, arguing that they are not taxi services, then getting into the same sort of idiotic, self-harming feuds that forced the government to start regulating taxi services.

    History, on a loop!

  • by bugnuts (94678) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:07PM (#47760833) Journal

    That is almost certainly illegal. If nothing else, it'd be tortuous interference, clearly designed to harm. Using burner phones is contributory evidence to fraud by showing mal intent.

  • by xeno (2667) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:07PM (#47760837)

    I hate hipsters, assholes, and golddiggers. And I hate people that try to get ahead by stepping on other people's heads.
    Watching the fight between Uber and Lyft, it feels like the appropriate way to do a little bit of social good is simply calling Yellow Cab.

    • by OhPlz (168413)

      Yea, the owner of the medallion needs his fortune for doing no work what-so-ever, meanwhile the poor immigrant driving the cab earns too little to live on. There's some social good for you.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    With David Plouffe [uber.com] onboard at Uber, a blizzard of blatant shameless dishonesty as part of a win-at-all-costs campaign is a certainty. Remember those "if you like your doctor..." and "if you like your health insurance..." Obama lies? (and YES, they WERE lies becuase the documents came out that show team Obama knew they were false claims at the time they made them). Plouffe was on THAT team. The guy is as filthy and dishonest as Karl Rove.

  • by westlake (615356) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:18PM (#47760893)

    The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat --- if not more so --- than any other industry out there.

    The geek's definition of "sharing" has always been --- flexible.

    Taxi services were cutthroat in the old days. Fleecing their customers and constantly at war with each other. That is why they came under regulation.

  • by jcochran (309950) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:19PM (#47760897)

    The summary here is about as deceptive as I could possibly imagine. What Uber is attempting to do isn't to initiate a lot of bogus trips and then cancel. They're attempting to recruit drivers from other companies and have them become drivers for Uber. The use of burner phones and credit cards are to prevent the easy detection of recruiters. Not to make fake trip requests.

    Personally, I believe that such tactics are legal, but morally suspect (if the tactics were illegal, it would also be illegal for a company to attempt to recruit employees from other companies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] )

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      there is nothing immoral about offering a worker a better job. if uber does not want to lose their drivers to the competition they can pay better
      • there is nothing immoral about offering a worker a better job. if uber does not want to lose their drivers to the competition they can pay better

        Except the story is about Uber trying to poach Lyft drivers, not Lyft trying to steal Uber drivers.

  • by Ion Berkley (35404) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:20PM (#47760907)

    You would think that Lyft was the last people that Uber has to worry about with all the entrenched taxi monopolies and the regulators after their blood.

  • It would seem to be pretty easy to prove, and cost Uber money... The point under test is Tortious interference...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

  • Regulation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beelsebob (529313) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @06:30PM (#47760959)

    It's almost like, if you don't regulate taxis, then they do all kinds of nasty stuff you wouldn't want them doing!

  • Since they have no intention of actual using the service, then it's fraud.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      Except, it's clear they have an intention of using the service.

      They want to use their bought-and-paid-for ride as an opportunity to proselytize a captive audience.

      1 - Book ride,
      2 - During ride to follow script for conversion of driver from Lyft to Uber.
      3 - If in a busy taxi market, wait a few minutes before booking a new ride to avoid getting the same driver.
      4 - Else use Uber to get a ride to a new part of town.
      5 - Repeat.

      Burner phones are required if the driver in step 2 rats them out as "bad passengers."

  • The taxi business has always been cut-throat. Taxi, "car for hire," ridesharing — call it what you will — at the end of the day it's gypsy cab operators squabbling over fares.

  • I don't use Uber, as they are a bunch of fucking scumbags.

    Have no use for Lyft either, but hopefully some law firm crushes those assholes at Uber.

  • So what stops me from just picking up one of these "burner" phones and (presumably prepaid) credit cards to actually use for legitimate purposes?

    Hell, even if they just send me a bottom-of-the-barrel tracphone, hey, free $30 flip-phone to keep in the car for emergencies (911 will work on any activated US cell phone, regardless of its in-service status)!
    • by mythosaz (572040)

      Well, for starters, you'd need to be a temp contractor working for TargetCW, and then you'd have to run away with the phone and credit card your employer provided you with for doing your job. :/

  • by Roblimo (357) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @07:10PM (#47761215) Homepage Journal

    I know the cab and limo business pretty well (check my /. user name), and I give Uber and Lyft another two years before they start fading. Drivers will get tired of paying high commissions, having all their income reported to the IRS, and beating up their cars like crazy. I survived and did well in the limo biz largely because I could do most of my own repairs and knew low-cost shops that could handle the rest. If I wanted to go back to driving for money (no need - between SS and the "side" freelance work I do, I'm fine) I'd probably work work with Uber until I built up my own "book" of business, that is, personal customers. Then I'd say "sayonara" to Uber, just as I did to the cab company as soon as I had enough personal business to tell them to go screw themselves and a threatened RICO suit against the Baltimore cab companies and the MD Public Service Commission opened the business to anyone with an inspected car, good commercial insurance, and a clean criminal record.

    My little group of owner/drivers competed successfully with Boston Coach, Carey, and other national companies. I have no doubt that I could compete successfully with Uber, too. Lyft? A low-rent gypsy cab service. I could beat them, too, but why bother? I did a little gypsy cab work many years ago, but didn't love it.

    • Given your perspective then, I have to ask: is the mutual cannibalization of Uber with Lyft a sign that they're already beginning to peak and thus to fade? And will the regulated taxi services survive?
  • False Representation
    Denial of Service
    Fraudulant Use/Misuse of Computer Resources
    Malicious Bypass of Security Protocols

    Illegal? Yes.
    Hanging offence? It should be.
    Grist for the London cab companies for unfair competition? Ohhhhhh, I hope they've been informed. That could be so fun to watch.

  • This is American capitalism at its finest. Who is really morally invested in Uber or Lyft anyway? As long as they don't lie or burn riders, this tough competition will likely only help riders.
  • by Tom (822) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @06:32AM (#47763593) Homepage Journal

    Uber reps ordering and canceling Lyft rides by the thousands, [...] Is this an example of legal-but-hard-hitting business tactics, or is Uber overstepping its bounds?

    Are you fucking kidding me? This is so plainly in the "if it's not illegal, it ought to be" category that it's really difficult to think of a more clear example.

    It's a direct attack on a competitors system, intended to deprive them of their ability to deliver their service. In IT security terms we'd call it a DOS.

    If this rumoured playbook exists, someone ought to go to jail for it. To me it's bright as daylight and even asking the question seems stupid.

  • Placing and canceling orders with the objective of disrupting a competitor's business? Yeah, that's wrong. Lyft could easily adopt the countermeasure of charging for cancellations, and requiring a legit user to identify themselves to request a refund.

    -jcr

  • Why not just give them multiple SIM cards?

    • by Cardoor (3488091)
      but they have all this VC cash burning a hole in their pockets! reminds me of steve martin in My Blue Heaven explaining why he had a car-trunk full of copies of the same (stolen) book.... 'in case i want to read it more than once.'

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...