A federal judge today dismissed anti-trust charges against Uber brought by medallion cab drivers in Boston, saying the drivers simply showed no proof of predatory pricing or that consumers were hurt by the lower prices Uber brought to point-to-point transportation in the area.

The ruling comes after a similar dismissal last December in a lawsuit filed against Uber by the owners of medallion cabs in Boston and surrounding communities.

However, Uber still has to defend itself against charges that its actions since it moved into Boston in 2011 violate state consumer protection laws and that, even if it isn't violating anti-trust laws, it's still being kind of a jerk and engaged in unfair competition, in suits brought by both the drivers and the medallion owners.

In his ruling, US District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton said the drivers failed to meet the standards set by the Sherman anti-trust act to prove monopolistic actions, including that Uber had or was driving towards a monopoly position in the market, was setting pricing well below its costs to drive out competitors and was hurting anybody besides competitors..

Plaintiff does not allege that Uber's services were priced below Uber's costs. He has failed to "explain in detail" why Uber's conduct constituted an antitrust violation. See Am. Steel, 815 F.3d at 71. His second amended complaint alleges that Uber "deflated the UberX fares to below cost in order to drive out the taxi drivers" but such "threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to survive a motion to dismiss. Basic facts such as what an average or median "ride" in the Boston area costs Uber, or costs a taxi, are absent. MacCausland attempts to bolster the factual allegations found lacking in Malden by attaching a report from the Wall Street Journal showing that, worldwide, Uber's costs exceed its revenue. Uber's global performance does not, however, constitute a relevant allegation as to Uber's costs in the "ride-hailing market in the City of Boston." Furthermore, although plaintiff correctly notes that "Uber is a privately held company that [does] not disclose relevant financial and market information," that fact does not absolve plaintiff from meeting the required pleading standard.

Gorton continues: