DoorDash responds to Uber’s lawsuit
A brief and fully layperson summary of DoorDash’s legal clapback
DoorDash just filed its response to the lawsuit Uber initiated on Valentine’s Day, asking a California Superior Court judge to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
I love legal filings. This is probably because I am not an expert in legal filings. But for purposes of creating a compelling narrative, the legal documents offer rare emotion and aggression from public companies that’s usually kept from public view.
To recap: Uber sued DoorDash in February, alleging anticompetitive business practices relating to both companies’ direct delivery platforms, Uber Direct and DoorDash Drive On-Demand. In the lawsuit, Uber claims DoorDash is using its position as the biggest third-party marketplace in the country to maintain control of the restaurants on its platform.
For more:
6 big points from Uber v. DoorDash
On Friday, Uber sued DoorDash in California Superior Court alleging anticompetitive practices. The suit claims that DoorDash, the undisputed delivery leader in America (Uber concedes this fact in the first sentence of the suit) used its position to prevent restaurants from using Uber’s white-label delivery platform, Uber Direct.
At the time, DoorDash issued a statement calling the claim meritless. “Their claims are unfounded and based on their inability to offer merchants, consumers, or couriers a quality alternative,” they said in February.
Today’s filing is an extension of that statement, with a few more spicy bits thrown in. The gist is that Uber can’t compete on product, so it’s resorting to legal action.
I am not a lawyer, and I won’t interpret the full text of DoorDash’s legal response. But here are three bits I found particularly compelling:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Expedite to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.