Law Firm Investigating Potential for Class Action Suit Against Rite Aid and CVS for Blocking Apple Pay

[BvizioN]

yay for bloodsucking lawyers!

Funny how until yesterday everyone was complaining about these 2 stores in US, and now that a law firm is investigating it, it is about them being bloodsucking. Though you are not wrong on that statement, it just goes to show that there is no pleasing people.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Saturation of the delivery or supply chain is nothing like colluding to cut out competition unless they colluded with fedex (in this example) to restrict supply.
I don't know where you got monopolozing out of these stories.

Apple cut competition out in the front end that brings products to market.

 

[jjofc11]

Apple Haters are so stupid, I think All payment options should be available for everyone, same way as visa or master card choices are now you decide how you want to pay for your goods, whats their plan? open Android pharmacies or Android only Walmart? This is getting ridiculous those haters don't want to be part of this FREEDOM

 

[Michael CM1]

I haven't shopped at many drug stores recently since I usually get stuff at Target. But since my credit card is now usable with Apple Pay, I went to Walgreens twice today. The store also uses a loyalty card in Passbook, so it's a place really embracing your wallet on your phone. I plan on giving them a little business to show my support for this. Apple Pay is EXTREMELY easy, and the loyalty card scanning is convenient yet shows you why scanning a code is so two thousand and late.

Why these stores can't support both NFC and CurrentC is confusing. Nothing would ever persuade me to use CurrentC.

 

[gnasher729]

How is this different than Apple's policy against apps "duplicating the functions on an iPhone"?

I don't know, but it is quite irrelevant. If they are doing something wrong, pointing the finger at someone else maybe doing something wrong doesn't help your case.

But you should realize that this lawfirm isn't doing it to support Apple, and they don't do it to help Rite Aid or CVS customers, the only reason they do it is to make money.

What Rite Aid and CVS are doing is annoying customers, but they have the right to annoy customers and drive them away to other stores.

----------

Untrue:

Cash MUST be accepted by law

True, but misleading. The store can refuse a sale for cash. Cash must be accepted for payment of debt, but no sale, no debt.

 

[H2SO4]

You have to look at this case objectively. These companies already accept credit cards, and they already have the point of sale terminals that accept NFC payments. They ACTIVELY disabled a form of payment that has 0 effect on their already existing payment methods and fees just so that they can push for their own solution.

Trust me, if MCX gets away with this nonsense, it will just be a matter of time before they have to deploy CurrentC via a web browser. If they want to demand their freedom to reject Apple Pay and Google Wallet, they can only expect the tech giants to practice their own version of freedom to reject their app submissions with a simple update to their Terms of Service declarations.

Again, all merchants don’t accept all credit cards. Why is that?

 

[flyinmac]

Of course they pay themselves. Out of the settlement resulting from the outcome.

While the settlement may be fairly punitive, the consumers hardly ever win out on these types of lawsuits. It's the lawyers that end up cashing in.

Question is... has anyone researched the lawyers to find out whether they accept Apple Pay from their clients in their business practice?

I'm betting that they do not. This is just profiteering.

 

[41qser]

class action lawsuits are retarded.

 

[tdiaz]

I'm still trying to figure out what the icon, image, whatever it is, is trying to depict ... in the second frame. It looks like a fortune cookie that is melting off the table.

Is it a cashier looking through a slit? What?

 

[DerekAndonian]

This is insane.

A merchant can opt to accept or NOT accept any of these:

cash
credit cards
PayPay
Bitcoin
Livestock
Produce
Visa but not Amex
checks
credit card with ID
gift cards
etc

THIS IS INSANE

Actually, childish is more like it

Are you freakin' kidding me?? If I go to a store to buy something and they refuse to accept my livestock, I'm gonna be pissed...

 

[flyinmac]

Are you freakin' kidding me?? If I go to a store to buy something and they refuse to accept my livestock, I'm gonna be pissed...

Well, I'm gonna be in line behind you, and if they don't accept my bundle of grass, I'm suing.

 

[WickedMessenger]

Image

I'm still trying to figure out what the icon, image, whatever it is, is trying to depict ... in the second frame. It looks like a fortune cookie that is melting off the table.

Is it a cashier looking through a slit? What?

It's a Burqa.

 

[Popeye206]

I don't think this lawsuit is about the type of payment CVS and RiteAid are accepting… it's about Collusion to stop fair market trade.

Personally… I see it as just pressure on these retailers to change back and allow NFC payments. There's no reason why not… they obviously thought NFC payments was worth it since most have the equipment in place already. Also, CurrentC has already come out and said their partners are not contractually obligated to not accept other payment forms. So their decision to drop NFC is not a contractual issue.

BTW… I'm NOT a fan of lame law suites, but sometimes they are good motivators.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

They have to, by law, by October 2015(All the new terminals for chip cards have NFC built in). If they don't upgrade they will be directly liable for credit card fraud.

It is definitely not "by law" - it is by the new terms of use and acceptance that will go into effect for all merchants that want to accept Visa & MasterCard. HUGE difference.

In order to accept cards with the Visa & MasterCard logos on them, merchants have to agree to the new terms of use - which stipulate that merchants will be liable for all fraud related to transactions completed using the card's magnetic strip. These new terms will be the basis for a contract between merchant and CC company, which will most likely be upheld in any lawsuit brought by either party in a liability dispute.

The difference is, merchants can simply stop accepting these CC's. There is no federal statute mandating this change.

Secondly, it is not true at all that all the new Chip POS terminals will have NFC. There are plenty of models out there now on the global market that are chip readers only and have no contactless payment capabilities. I used a little handheld one during lunch today that my server gave me to stick my card into. There are actually more models without than with.

That being said, it would be silly not to go ahead and future proof your POS terminal and make sure it has NFC capabilities if you are basically being forced to upgrade anyway. What if MCX goes NFC too in the next year or so? Then you gotta go out and buy new ones again? It does make sense, both for mom & pop shops that want to accept CC's as well as the big mega retailers to go ahead and get the whole package right away. Long term it is a better and cheaper alternative. Short term it is a bigger cash outlay now...

 

[finchna]

Image

I'm still trying to figure out what the icon, image, whatever it is, is trying to depict ... in the second frame. It looks like a fortune cookie that is melting off the table.

Is it a cashier looking through a slit? What?

Doesn't it represent the barcode scanner at the checkout area? sometimes those scanners are stationary, sometimes handheld, sometimes passover -- like many grocery stores, sometimes more elevated -- like the one in the illustration.

 

[tattooedyuppie]

"Same law firm also seen chasing an ambulance down the street."

 

[gc916]

Image

I'm still trying to figure out what the icon, image, whatever it is, is trying to depict ... in the second frame. It looks like a fortune cookie that is melting off the table.

Is it a cashier looking through a slit? What?

I think it's supposed to be a scanner.

 

[irnchriz]

Instead of trying to drum up a lawsuit so that they can get "PAID!" these scummy lawyers should be petitioning the DoJ for an investigation if they think it is detrimental to customers. However, I don't see what the problem for customers really is if these stores still accept cash and the same cards themselves which are on the iPhone or attached to Google wallet.

 

[hudson1]

Exactly....

But hey let's run with this idea. After all, I can't use my cell phone plan on another carriers network. And for that matter why can't I check my AT&T email from within Verizon's website? Really, you mean I have to log in with a different method? I want a lawsuit.

This possible class-action lawsuit isn't the real story here. Frankly, I doubt it gets a lot of traction. Instead, the real story came out earlier on MacRumors where it was reported the US Federal government was looking into the actions of MCX, RiteAid, and CVS.

I've had very extension antitrust training over the years and this prohibition of NFC payment options by the parties looks really bad on that front. Someone brought up the example that a merchant doesn't have to accept a credit card or even a specific credit card for a purchase. That's true. OTOH, a trade organization can't get into the business of creating uniform terms and conditions of sale for its members, which is essentially what MCX is trying to do here. It would be like MCX telling RiteAid and CVS that they may accept Visa but not MasterCard or even tell them they can't accept any 3rd party charge card. Yes, either RiteAid or CVS can make that decision on their own but they can't have an agreement between them to do so.

Here's the important part... the government doesn't have to present an ironclad proof of collusion. The appearance, means, and the result of collusion is sometimes enough to get a conviction. I'm reminded of this about once a year by my employer!

 

[Macinva]

Don't know if this is good or bad. It could force these companies to re-enable NFC, however it could encourage some other companies to never even install NFC terminals so they cannot be targeted by such legal action.

Then they'll just target them with lawsuits for not adopting NFC. LOL

 

[jweinraub]

Went to CvS last night

Went to my local CVS to pickup my renewals. The reader was lit so I decided to try it. It immediately spawned ApplePay. It vibrated and seemed like it went through. Then in the POS system, it showed declined. I tried my other three cards I had activated. Same thing happened for all them. Very odd.

 

[ProfessorHenry]

Went to my local CVS to pickup my renewals. The reader was lit so I decided to try it. It immediately spawned ApplePay. It vibrated and seemed like it went through. Then in the POS system, it showed declined. I tried my other three cards I had activated. Same thing happened for all them. Very odd.

Why is it odd if they disabled it?

 

[Frobozz]

This will be good for consumers. Put the heat of them. This isn't an issue of rolling out new hardware or software. They're blocking existing, working functionality in favor of another platform.

Regardless of the outcome, these companies will accept Apple Pay when it becomes fiscally hurtful for them not to. That depends on Apple Pay adoption, but I can imagine this is just a matter of WHEN, not if.

 

[i-John]

Not really. The class-action is probably more related to collusion than
anything else, which is anti-competitive. Capitalism implies a competitive
market.

Where is the anti-competition? These retailers have made a choice to join the exchange. They are free to leave without financial penalty. They choose to stay in the exchange as they develop their own method of payment. They have the right to not accept any payment option they want. That sounds like an open competitive market to me. If retailers lose money by being in the Exchange, then they will leave and accept Apple Pay if that's financially better for them.
I do see their side in trying to get a payment system that bypasses extra charges. For larger retailers, that is a massive saving. Consumers don't see those charges.

 

[NY Guitarist]

This possible class-action lawsuit isn't the real story here. Frankly, I doubt it gets a lot of traction. Instead, the real story came out earlier on MacRumors where it was reported the US Federal government was looking into the actions of MCX, RiteAid, and CVS.

I've had very extension antitrust training over the years and this prohibition of NFC payment options by the parties looks really bad on that front. Someone brought up the example that a merchant doesn't have to accept a credit card or even a specific credit card for a purchase. That's true. OTOH, a trade organization can't get into the business of creating uniform terms and conditions of sale for its members, which is essentially what MCX is trying to do here. It would be like MCX telling RiteAid and CVS that they may accept Visa but not MasterCard or even tell them they can't accept any 3rd party charge card. Yes, either RiteAid or CVS can make that decision on their own but they can't have an agreement between them to do so.

Here's the important part... the government doesn't have to present an ironclad proof of collusion. The appearance, means, and the result of collusion is sometimes enough to get a conviction. I'm reminded of this about once a year by my employer!

^ This is my understanding of this situation too.

Where is the anti-competition? These retailers have made a choice to join the exchange. They are free to leave without financial penalty. They choose to stay in the exchange as they develop their own method of payment. They have the right to not accept any payment option they want. That sounds like an open competitive market to me. If retailers lose money by being in the Exchange, then they will leave and accept Apple Pay if that's financially better for them.
I do see their side in trying to get a payment system that bypasses extra charges. For larger retailers, that is a massive saving. Consumers don't see those charges.

They aren't free too choose to also accept Apple Pay if they want to use MCX, and if they accept Apple Pay are ejected from MCX and lose their $500,000 membership fee.

MCX is using tacit collusion to limit competition from Apple Pay. If they weren't then MCX members would be allowed to also choose to accept Apple Pay, or other similar forms of payment.