> Then there’s using funds from one place you have significant dominance to to undercut (including running at a loss) in the new industry - I’m much iffier on e

> Then there’s using funds from one place you have significant dominance to to undercut (including running at a loss) in the new industry - I’m much iffier on exactly at what point this becomes uncompetitive as it seems a fairly common thing for many companies to do. I think the distinguishing factor in something like this would be beyond running at a loss, but doing so in a way that would be no way sustainable unless you had massive cash reserves or income streams from your other business verticals—-which you allude to. Most businesses operate at a loss initially, and sometimes competitive pricing is a part of that, but you typically can’t price your services far far below market rate and not quickly go out of business unless you just have insane amounts of seed funding or you’re abusing your market power as a large corporation. Of all the qualifiers you listed, though, I’d agree it’s definitely the one with the biggest gradient between competitive and anti-competitive practices.