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

[bassett700]

Your analogy is off. CurrentC is not making merchants agree to disallow Apply Pay. The merchants have simply chosen not to accept Apple pay.

Yes they are. Part of the agreement is that they cannot accept any other mobile wallet

But isn't an "exclusivity" agreement with no substantive repercussions for violating it meaningless? According to the front page Macrumors post, "Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) held a conference call with members of the press to further address questions and concerns. During the call, MCX CEO Dekkers Davidson and COO Scott Rankin clarified that MCX merchants who choose to accept Apple Pay are not subject to fines. As stated in the blog post earlier today, merchants are also free to leave the consortium entirely at any time without penalty beyond forfeiting the time and money already invested in the effort."

 

[bigchrisfgb]

As far as I'm aware debit/credit cards are not legal tender (at least not here in the UK). Therefor so long as cash (which is legal tender) is given as an option to pay then they are doing nothing illegal. Also note that you can still put with debit/credit cards, just not NFC.

 

[BaldiMac]

In due respect, your analogy does not make any sense. Anti-trust laws have to do with protecting the consumer, not another retailer. The consumer is no worse off not being able to use Apple Pay at a store that choose not to accept it. The consumer can always go to another retailer that offers it (that is called competition). If the consumer chooses to shop at the retailer that does not accept Apple Pay, their are still other means to pay for the goods (cash, credit or debit). The consumer is in no way harmed.

An "inconvenience" of not being able to utilize Apple Pay is simply an inconvenience. At the end of the day, the consumer decides if they want to deal with the inconvenience or not.

This is all about Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.

The problem with your claim is that you are looking at the wrong market. An antitrust investigation would not be about retail sales. It would be about the market for mobile payment systems. Consumers are certainly hurt by a lack of competition in that market.

 

[JoeTomasone]

As far as I'm aware debit/credit cards are not legal tender (at least not here in the UK). Therefor so long as cash (which is legal tender) is given as an option to pay then they are doing nothing illegal. Also note that you can still put with debit/credit cards, just not NFC.

A merchant in the United States can refuse ANY method of payment, including US coins and currency. Odd, but true. Legal tender in the US effectively means for public obligations, taxes, and the like. "Legal tender" varies by jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

However, a group that colludes to ban a payment method for anti-competitive purposes may fall afoul of US trade law as mentioned already in this thread.

 

[bigchrisfgb]

A merchant in the United States can refuse ANY method of payment, including US coins and currency. Odd, but true. Legal tender in the US effectively means for public obligations, taxes, and the like. "Legal tender" varies by jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

However, a group that colludes to ban a payment method for anti-competitive purposes may fall afoul of US trade law as mentioned already in this thread.

The thing is though you can still pay by card, just not NFC.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

The thing is though you can still pay by card, just not NFC.

Read the bold part in post #49. Restricting other mobile payment methods may be anticompetitive regardless if you still take credit cards.