Working together with other retailers to create a shell company and develop a new payment method while agreeing to block competing payment methods out is collusion and the DoJ should be investigating.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Law Firm Investigating Potential for Class Action Suit Against Rite Aid and CVS for Blocking Apple Pay
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Working together with other retailers to create a shell company and develop a new payment method while agreeing to block competing payment methods out is collusion and the DoJ should be investigating.
Law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe is full of *****.
We don't need them to file a class action on anyone's behalf other them wanting money for themselves. They are no better than patent trolls.
We don't need them to file a class action on anyone's behalf other them wanting money for themselves. They are no better than patent trolls.
US law allows the credit networks & banks to transfer liability to merchants that refuse to update to more secure standards.
Exactly my thoughts. As much as I hate CVS and RiteAid for this decision, but in my opinion they have every right to accept whatever payment method they want in their stores. The only consequence should be (probably) loosing some customers not a class action lawsuit!
I know this is sarcasm but you couldn't be closer to the truth of some people on this site.
it's no different but it looks like they are stuck between a rock and a tight spot. banks are pressuring merchants to accept NFC b/c of security and they might actually end up being required by law. this seems to be in its infancy tough so I'm sure we'll learn more in the years to come as it becomes the standard.
Sooo, two things: 1) merchants aren't required to accept cash. Merchants aren't required to accept ANY forms of payment. You could have a business that sold things and didn't accept ANY form of payments, because freedom.
2) This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. The businesses aren't being accused of breaking the law: if the case took off (which is not where it is in the process yet--the firm in question is just asking around to see whether there ARE any people being wronged), these merchants would be accused of wronging customers by colluding with competitors.
Ignoring everyone else in the thread saying this is an insane lawsuit, there ARE some examples of ways in which a customer could bring a decent lawsuit--and that's what the firms here are looking for.
An example: if CVS were to suffer a data breach in the coming months (which, let's face it, is not crazy), an impacted customer in a town where CVS is the only pharmacy around could demonstrate that they WOULD have used ApplePay to pay for her prescription drugs, which would have insulated her from the attack had CVS not capriciously disabled its own ability to accept that form of payment. An individual in such a situation could then be used by the courts to create a class of individuals ("people with capable devices who attempted to use ApplePay at a CVS between 10/24 and present") who could claim damages as well.
It's not crazy in the slightest.
This is about them intentionally _disabling_ a feature that worked perfectly fine beforehand simply to satisfy the MCX folks. Why was NFC enabled to begin with if they were contractually obligated to not accept other methods of payment? Also, are they not allowed to accept credit cards _at all_ while in contract with the CurrentC program? It's a mixed bag of hurt for them to have done this, and Apple users are right to be upset. However, I don't agree that a law firm should file a class action suit, either. Just boycott the offending merchants. Simple.
I'll assume you're correct for the argument's sake.
The question may be that if the store accepts card X from you by swiping, but doesn't accept the same card X from me because I want to use NFC (of which the store is capable).
Are they treating us differently and why?
(I'm not saying I'm for any law suit, just pointing out the possible "discrimination ")
Last edited:
the difference is that here you have a disparate group of retailers banding together to (i) create a payment system and (ii) refuse to accept a competitor.
that is more or less antitrust 101.
Then I suppose it would come down to whether the costs incurred would be offset by the savings made by not paying fees and also the hidden value of being able to better track individual purchases.
Yes, they would because they can!
BTW: Just received $ 8.97 from a Toyota acceleration issue class action law suit.
Clearly Rite Aid and CVS are making a wrong/bad business decision here, but this lawsuit is the epitome litigiousness. It's their dumb decision, and no-one is forced to shop at those stores.
Customer: "Google Wallet?"
CVS Employee: "No."
Customer: "Apple Pay?"
CVS Employee: "No."
Customer: "CurrentC?"
CVS Employee: "Yes! Oh, but it's not currently working. Also it's a huge pain in the ass."
Customer: "I know, I was just kidding. Here's my Discover card."
CVS Employee: "Oooh, I'm sorry, we don't accept Discover."
Customer: "Google Wallet?"
CVS Employee: "No."
Customer: "Apple Pay?"
CVS Employee: "No."
Customer: "CurrentC?"
CVS Employee: "Yes! Oh, but it's not currently working. Also it's a huge pain in the ass."
Customer: "I know, I was just kidding. Here's my Discover card."
CVS Employee: "Oooh, I'm sorry, we don't accept Discover."
Last edited:
That is true.
The difference is that here you have a disparate group of retailers banding together to (i) create a payment system and (ii) refuse to accept a competitor.
In other words, a merchant may not band together with a group of other merchants (keep in mind, we're talking a very large percentage of US retail here) to collude in a way that is restrictive of trade.
The class-action part of this is moderately ridiculous; I'm not interested in seeing Rite Aid sued into offering the payment processing system I want to use, I'm just not going to shop there anymore.
The antitrust part, however, could theoretically have some standing, at least if the coalition was large enough. That is, if a very large percentage of the retail sector gets together, sits down, and says "We are going to offer one payment system and expressly prohibit the use of a competitor in order for others to support it", at some point it could get into anti-trust territory.
If it did, and further if VISA was owned by a coalition of very large retail outlets that made up a majority of retail sales in the US, then Discover might have an antitrust argument to make.
As with all antitrust things, it requires the monopoly or monopoly-scale collusion, and forced exclusivity rather than just market preference, for it to be a problem.
If no one sells a Linux PC because no one wants to buy one, that's not monopolistic behavior. If Microsoft requires PC manufacturers to use its software exclusively in order to sell Windows-equipped computers, and Microsoft is in a dominant market position, then it is.
The antitrust part, however, could theoretically have some standing, at least if the coalition was large enough. That is, if a very large percentage of the retail sector gets together, sits down, and says "We are going to offer one payment system and expressly prohibit the use of a competitor in order for others to support it", at some point it could get into anti-trust territory.
While I'm not defending these lawyers, it's not directly equivalent. The merchant agreement for VISA does not prohibit the merchant from accepting Discover or cash. They have the option of not doing so, but it's not a requirement.
If it did, and further if VISA was owned by a coalition of very large retail outlets that made up a majority of retail sales in the US, then Discover might have an antitrust argument to make.
As with all antitrust things, it requires the monopoly or monopoly-scale collusion, and forced exclusivity rather than just market preference, for it to be a problem.
If no one sells a Linux PC because no one wants to buy one, that's not monopolistic behavior. If Microsoft requires PC manufacturers to use its software exclusively in order to sell Windows-equipped computers, and Microsoft is in a dominant market position, then it is.
Last edited:
I think these retailers are only hurting themselves. It is short sighted and a payment system driven by and for marketing data will not succeed.
That being said I think retailers are free to choose what forms of payment they accept and how they accept them. This particular action is baseless, in my opinion. Retailers do not have to accept any debit cards or credit cards if tgdg do not want to do so.
That being said I think retailers are free to choose what forms of payment they accept and how they accept them. This particular action is baseless, in my opinion. Retailers do not have to accept any debit cards or credit cards if tgdg do not want to do so.