DoorDash’s Tony Soprano-Like Mob Tactics Forces Uber to Cry Foul in Major Lawsuit...

Well friends, if you can’t already tell, this weekend was definitely one for the books in corporate America. We had Trump triggering another oil boom, some Welsh guy trying to buy a landfill to scavenge his $800 million in Bitcoin, and now we have Uber suing DoorDash—accusing them of running the food delivery game like a two-bit mob boss. 

(Source: Giphy) 

In short, Ubers lawsuit claims DoorDash is cornering restaurants into exclusive contracts, using threats of higher fees, app demotions, and financial penalties if they even think about working with Uber Direct—Uber’s own white-label delivery service. Meaning, DoorDash is essentially coming to the negotiation table saying, “Nice little restaurant you’ve got there. Shame if something happened to your delivery revenue.”

Now in truth, is this really “ethical” on DoorDash’s part? No not really, but at the end of the day it’s not about fair competition or helping restaurants succeed— it’s about power and control. DoorDash already owns 65% of the U.S. food delivery market, leaving UberEats lagging behind at a distant second with 23%. So, instead of beating DoorDash the old-fashioned way—by being better—they’re running to Daddy Legal System, hoping a judge will slap DoorDash on the wrist for playing dirty.

(Source: StockFlow) 

DoorDash, of course, is treating this lawsuit like a joke. Their response, in the nicest way possible, is essentially saying that Uber is just salty that they absolutely suck at keeping up with competition. To which I say, they definitely have a point. Uber Direct was supposed to be their big move into restaurant-first delivery, but if DoorDash really has 90% of major restaurant chains locked up in exclusivity deals, then Uber’s little side hustle is effectively dead on arrival.

For restaurants who are in the middle of this clusterf**k, this is just another day of getting bent over by the food delivery overlords. If Uber’s right, DoorDash is forcing them into exclusivity deals that drive up fees, meaning you, dear customer, are the one getting screwed over with higher menu prices. And if Uber loses? Well, enjoy even more of DoorDash’s unchecked dominance, where they can keep jacking up fees without consequence.

(Source: Reuters) 

At the end of the day, this lawsuit is just another chapter in the never-ending fiasco of two tech giants getting into a pission match while pretending to care about “fair competition”. Especially since, in my personal opinion, this charade isn’t about breaking monopolies, it’s all about who gets to be the monopoly. 

Uber doesn’t actually want a freer market; it wants DoorDash’s market. If the roles were reversed, you can bet your tail Uber would be pulling the same power moves, locking restaurants into exclusivity deals and jacking up fees the second it had the upper hand. Whereas, no matter who wins, the only thing guaranteed out of this chaos is that restaurants and customers will still be the ones paying the price. Rant over. 

(Source: Giphy) 

For now, keep your eyes on this story as Uber ended Friday down -1.08% on the day, while DoorDash closed +3.76% on the day (which is pretty savage to say the least). I have no doubt we’ll see some more heavy impact on prices during Tuesday's session—so just make sure you’re not the one holding the bag when the hammer comes down on either one of these companies. Meaning, place your bets accordingly, friends. And as always, stay safe and stay frosty! Until next time.. 

P.S. Want deep dives on the hottest AI plays before the rest of the market catches on? Want to know who’s riding the hype train and who’s actually building something that won’t collapse the second the AI bubble deflates? Want the inside track on the moves that matter before they hit the front page? Then quit playing around and subscribe to Stocks.News Premium ASAP… 

Stocks.News holds positions in Uber as mentioned in the article.