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

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by WolfSnap, Oct 27, 2014.

  1. WolfSnap macrumors 6502a

    WolfSnap

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Applejuiced macrumors Westmere

    Applejuiced

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    #2
    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.
     
  3. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #3
    They're not preventing physical credit cards though.
     
  4. nateo200 macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #4
    I'm not sure but generally speaking when the feds investigate something they don't talk about it until they are ready to pounce...
     
  5. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #5
    collusion against what?


    Customer chooses their payment method.
     
  6. WolfSnap thread starter macrumors 6502a

    WolfSnap

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #6
    They're all working together to achieve a shared goal. That's illegal.
     
  7. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #7
    A shared goal per se isn't necessarily illegal.
     
  8. WolfSnap thread starter macrumors 6502a

    WolfSnap

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #8
    From Wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

    Tell me again how this is legal??
     
  9. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #9
    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.
     
  10. WolfSnap thread starter macrumors 6502a

    WolfSnap

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #10
    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.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11
    Exactly. I can pay with cash/ credit/ currentC

    Where was this argument for NFC a few years ago?
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    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.
     
  13. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #13
    How? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's collusion
     
  14. Steve686 macrumors 68030

    Steve686

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Location:
    US>FL>Miami/Dade>Sunny Isles Beach>Condo
    #14
    Because all the companies that backed HD DVD or Blue-Ray would be under investigation.

    It's a preferred METHOD dispute. It's not refusal of LEGAL CURRENCY.
     
  15. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #15
    no they arent.

    providing an alternative payment method is not removing competition.


    it is adding it.
     
  16. Steve686 macrumors 68030

    Steve686

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Location:
    US>FL>Miami/Dade>Sunny Isles Beach>Condo
    #16
    So a store that does not take Diners Club cards is breaking the law?
     
  17. Yakibomb macrumors 6502

    Yakibomb

    Joined:
    May 13, 2014
    Location:
    Cape Town
    #17
    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'
     
  18. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #18
    Well, to the OP's credit, they're removing Apple Pay and Google Wallet (less competition), but that's about it and this doesn't necessarily equate to collusion in the legal sense.
     
  19. Steve686 macrumors 68030

    Steve686

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Location:
    US>FL>Miami/Dade>Sunny Isles Beach>Condo
    #19
    Can't use MasterCard at NFL games.
     
  20. yukari macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #20
    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".
     
  21. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #21
    Deliberately removing NFC is removing competition from other mobile wallets
     
  22. bassett700 macrumors member

    bassett700

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    Dingus, VA
    #22
    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.
     
  23. kepler20b macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    #23
    NFC is not legal tender
     
  24. highlightshadow macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    #24
    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
     
  25. Newtons Apple macrumors P6

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #25
    Or they read it on Fox News and have to do something. ;)
     

Share This Page