A taxi driver has to rent a medallion and a car (because they can't just use the one they already own) and needs to charge extra for trips across city limits (because they're barred from picking up anyone in another city). It's not predatory pricing when your lower prices are due to lower costs.

A taxi driver in my state has to rent nothing, has to only get insurance and a drivers license allowing them to transport people (which is basically 50$), and there’s two dozen competing services.

Don’t assume your local shitty laws are an issue everywhere.

Likewise, don't assume your local good laws aren't shitty everywhere else.

Predatory pricing is only illegal if you are a monopoly, or part of a price-fixing cartel. Simply selling something for less than cost is 100% legal, although as a business strategy it requires deep pockets, and if or when you raise prices you risk alienating your customers...

Clarification, having checked after being down-voted. It is also illegal if the below-cost pricing strategy can be shown to have been implemented with the express purpose of driving competitors out of business. This intent is the important thing, it would be fine to sell below cost to gain customers for a new market, or to encourage network effects, and if that had the unintended side effect of causing a competing company to fail this is fine.

My understanding is that these cases are usually very hard to prove, unless you have 'smoking gun' evidence of some kind.