For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act"

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/

Violating the TOS of your competitors API so you can directly compete with them is risky, and due to the overly broad nature of CFAA it could easily end with multiple Uber employees in prison if pursued criminally.

Not that I think it will be pursued criminally, as Uber has power & influence on its side to protect it from repercussions people like myself would face for doing the same exact thing. I wish that weren't the case though, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

Were the Lyft drivers personally identifiable? Or did they just find the location of anonomized drivers?

Personally identifiable using unique Lyft identifiers.

Which includes what?

None of the sources I've read through itemize exactly what that means; they do mention that Uber was able to determine if a Lyft driver also drove for Uber, which means they knew the driver's personal details. Otherwise, if a Lyft driver did not also drive for Uber, I would assume they would not have personal information on the driver.

We'll find out regardless through discovery.

If you have overlapping GPS info of Lyft and Uber you know it's the same driver. If not, you could still order a Lyft to get their phone number and make them an offer.