I suppose it makes sense when applied just to Uber, but it seems misleading. Actors in a free market system will have different models that in isolation would be not so free. I thought free market deals with aggregates.

Since Uber sets prices for a large portion of the market they operate in they have monopoly power and it's therefore not a free market. Uber's at 46% market share in major U.S. markets[0], since taxi's are regulated locally and Uber is setting prices for almost half the market nationally Uber is arguably the #1 regulatory power in the U.S. personal transportation sector.

[0] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2015/04/10/ubers-as...

It's still early though, right? I mean, they might have some dominance now (I wouldn't call 46% in major markets a monopoly), but let's see how things shake out in a few years.

> Uber is arguably the #1 regulatory power in the U.S. personal transportation sector.

I would reserve the phrase "regulatory power" to government. I think you're using it here for the hyperbolic value.

Given Uber's recent $50bn valuation I'd say "the market" believes they'll keep their market power and resulting profits for some time into the future. (46% definitely means monopoly power but it doesn't mean monopoly.)

I am being snarky, but the libertarian poster-child is shielding 46% of the national market from competition (drivers can't compete with eachother) and that's pretty ironic.