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
I'm no lawyer, I'm just a simple caveman. All this technology frightens me.
However - I do put forth this - can the lawyers claim anti-trust, or whatever if there is no viable alternative yet.
Meaning MCX isn't rolled out. Choosing not to allow mobile payments doesn't seem in itself like a "crime." Especially since these companies are still allowing all credit card transactions they did before.
I think if the lawyers want to build a case where MCX is currently available and if those stores are not allowing NFC payments - perhaps they have a better shot.
But again - I'm no lawyer.
However - I do put forth this - can the lawyers claim anti-trust, or whatever if there is no viable alternative yet.
Meaning MCX isn't rolled out. Choosing not to allow mobile payments doesn't seem in itself like a "crime." Especially since these companies are still allowing all credit card transactions they did before.
I think if the lawyers want to build a case where MCX is currently available and if those stores are not allowing NFC payments - perhaps they have a better shot.
But again - I'm no lawyer.
Most class action lawsuits are BS, but technically there is merit here.
The two companies seemingly colluded to block Apple Pay even though they had previously allowed transactions from it's competitor, Google Wallet. Yes, they can decide what forms of currency they want to accept, but they can't do so simply to harm a third-party entity. Had they not previously accepted Google Wallet and demonstrated they have no reason to block Apple Pay other than the protection of CurrentC, there would be less stable ground to stand on.
The two companies seemingly colluded to block Apple Pay even though they had previously allowed transactions from it's competitor, Google Wallet. Yes, they can decide what forms of currency they want to accept, but they can't do so simply to harm a third-party entity. Had they not previously accepted Google Wallet and demonstrated they have no reason to block Apple Pay other than the protection of CurrentC, there would be less stable ground to stand on.
It is ridiculous that a soda vending machine in my office accepts Apple pay and CVS/Rite aid do not.
Who are the "you guys" you're referring to? Certainly not the members here who likely have nothing to do with this frivolous lawsuit.
Which piece of legislation says this? Which cases provide precedent for both your example and the current example being treated the same way?
If I as Don's Store, or even my megachain Don's Stuff, choose not to accept Apple Pay, that's my call. If I get together with a bunch of other merchants and we agree that none of us will accept Apple Pay, that's where it gets close to collusion to block a competitor and becomes problematical. MCX isn't an outside third party, it's owned by the retailers.
Fecking bottom feeding ambulance chasers.
Though my heart is on Apple's side, I hope CVS and Rite Aid win. And claim big damages.
Though my heart is on Apple's side, I hope CVS and Rite Aid win. And claim big damages.
The customer could have chose to pay with cash, and thus would not have been affected by this example of a data breach. Secondly, Apple could not guarantee 100% that there could never be a data breach with NFC. Thus, the lawsuit would be frivolous.
There is no need for the courts to have anything to do with this, people can vote with their feet and shop elsewhere if they want to use ApplePay.
You want to look at one of the reasons people disparage yanks? Many of the issues in this story, the whole concept of CurrentC that was some arsehat idea by some useless MBAs with no idea about customers, the outdated cashier tech, panic decisions by MCX partners faced with disruptive tech, and then the inevitable entry of the bottom feeder lawyers that infest the U.S., is a gold mine of reasons.
On the other side of course, one of the best things about yanks is their entrepreneurial drive to make things better. And KFC and Maccas, can't forget them!
Edit: this story should end up as an example of how the U.S. can work well, as long as the politicians don't try to fix it. CurrentC will either collapse or learn to play nicely with Apple Pay. If the politicians and courts decide to intervene, a la the worst of European style politics, the outcome will be less optimal, and more expensive.
You want to look at one of the reasons people disparage yanks? Many of the issues in this story, the whole concept of CurrentC that was some arsehat idea by some useless MBAs with no idea about customers, the outdated cashier tech, panic decisions by MCX partners faced with disruptive tech, and then the inevitable entry of the bottom feeder lawyers that infest the U.S., is a gold mine of reasons.
On the other side of course, one of the best things about yanks is their entrepreneurial drive to make things better. And KFC and Maccas, can't forget them!
Edit: this story should end up as an example of how the U.S. can work well, as long as the politicians don't try to fix it. CurrentC will either collapse or learn to play nicely with Apple Pay. If the politicians and courts decide to intervene, a la the worst of European style politics, the outcome will be less optimal, and more expensive.
Last edited:
It's not collusion if their agreement with MCX which was formed in 2011 - long before Apple Pay was announced prevented them from adopting other technologies.
The only in might be the Google Wallet angle. But so far no one has addressed that from the MCX/retailer side as to why that was allowed.
I'm hoping your screen name was chosen ironically. If not, then they must be giving away JDs in vending machines these days.
As much as the MCX system appears to suck and unfortunately prevents the use of Apple Pay, there's no collusion here or denying any "rights" to consumers.
This law firm is investigating the potential to get paid. That's all this is.
This is so frivolous, it's not even funny. The only people winning here are the bloodsucking lawyers.
No one is forcing people to go into these stores. One can simply boycott without the need of resorting the courts.
No one is forcing people to go into these stores. One can simply boycott without the need of resorting the courts.
"many have likely invested significant resources into the creation of CurrentC"
Well, that was a stupid move on their part. Still seems like a frivolous lawsuit, and CurrentC will die off anyway.
Well, that was a stupid move on their part. Still seems like a frivolous lawsuit, and CurrentC will die off anyway.