Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can someone explain to me how CurrentC isn't illegal collusion?

WolfSnap

WolfSnap

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 18, 2012
1,070
910
SoCal
You have a group of retailers that are all cooperating together, in their common shared interests, to eliminate credit cards (and the protections they include), prevent Google Wallet and Apple Pay from gaining traction, and promoting a shared system where they all share in the user data to better themselves...

If this isn't collusion, I don't know what is.

Am I wrong? If not, where's the DOJ?
 
Applejuiced

Applejuiced

macrumors Westmere
Apr 16, 2008
40,672
6,533
At the iPhone hacks section.
I think their current actions need to be investigated.
Certain retailers going around and turning off nfc capability to sabotage or slow down a certain payment method in favor of one that they are coming out with soon does sound shady and anti competitive.
Again they can argue it's our stores and we will accept any payment method we want and no one can really force us to use certain payment options.
The only one that could push them is customers and money lost or the amount of transactions other retailers do with nfc payments. Voting with your wallet and what is easy, safe and popular will prevail in the end imo.
 
nateo200

nateo200

macrumors 68030
Feb 4, 2009
2,906
42
Upstate NY
I'm not sure but generally speaking when the feds investigate something they don't talk about it until they are ready to pounce...
 
WolfSnap

WolfSnap

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 18, 2012
1,070
910
SoCal
From Wiki:

In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market structure of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Tell me again how this is legal??
 
K

kepler20b

macrumors 6502
Oct 18, 2014
483
411
again, currentc is built as an alternative. it's not to discourage the use of CCs. the customer is not being defrauded out of anything.
 
WolfSnap

WolfSnap

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 18, 2012
1,070
910
SoCal
They're colluding to limit and remove competition.. It's a shared interest, and none of these companies should be working together -- even if it's to save puppies! It's collusion IMHO.
 
Y

yg17

macrumors Pentium
Aug 1, 2004
15,027
3,002
St. Louis, MO
They're not colluding to set prices like a cartel. They're working together on an alternative payment system. They could make CurrentC the ONLY accepted payment method at their stores and it would still be legal. Customers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like the accepted methods of payment.

Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it's illegal.
 
K

kepler20b

macrumors 6502
Oct 18, 2014
483
411
WolfSnap said:
They're colluding to limit and remove competition.. It's a shared interest, and none of these companies should be working together -- even if it's to save puppies! It's collusion IMHO.
Click to expand...

no they arent.

providing an alternative payment method is not removing competition.


it is adding it.
 
Yakibomb

Yakibomb

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2014
413
60
Cape Town
I think what separates this from collusion is that these companies are not using their joint power to push prices up. In fact they've said that they'll push some of the 3-5% saving they'll be receiving onto the customers.

So, I think it'll be hard to legally fault a system that is mutually beneficial to both the customer and the retailers :p
That being said I still think its a weak move of them to block out their 'competition'
 
yukari

yukari

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2010
964
628
The legal definition of "collusion" that op is eluding to refers to an act that influences price to consumers.

CurrentC does not influence price but (as someone above pointed out) may actually result in a lower price due to merchants not having to pay 2-4% to the credit card companies.

Simply refusing to accept Apple Pay (or any NFC payment system) does not per se influence price. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's suggestion, it does NOT meet the legal definition of "collusion".
 
bassett700

bassett700

macrumors member
Jan 8, 2009
93
12
Dingus, VA
The key words from the definition above: "...the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole..." Implicit in this definition is adverse impact (increased cost to the consumer or limiting market options, for example). No one has yet explained how this is happening with CurrentC.

To pro-collusion supporters: How do the efforts with CurrentC significantly impact the market as a whole? You understand that weenies with Iphones who use Apple Pay are not "the market as a whole" don't you? As others have noted, other payment forms like cash, credit cards, checks, debit cards, traveler's checks, etc. remain viable payment options at the CurrentC cartel stores. Now implementing CurrentC and allowing that as the only payment form and charging a fee might be illegal collusion.
 
H

highlightshadow

macrumors regular
Oct 11, 2012
182
0
At the moment they're a trade body forming a new standard

Colluding isn't intrinsically illegal
Don't like the fact that Wallmart doesn't take ApplePay? Shop elsewhere, write to them telling you're taking custom elsewhere.

But they're not a monopoly or anything .... a minority of shops are in this group ... they still accept cash and regular cards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom