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
AlecZ
macrumors 65816
Just wondering, is Apple also bloodsucking? After all, they sell goods and services and expect money in return. I don't want to be sarcastic, just pointing something out.
Last edited:
Of course you shouldn't sue them, they don't have any money.
loanhighknight
macrumors member
That is not, in any universe, the definition of frivolous. Just because you have the ability to mitigate the harm ("paying with cash") caused by another party (CVS, who just disabled its secure NFC readers) does not mean there are no damages.
This'll go a lot smoother if you think before you type.
No. The key is that when you give Apple money, you actually get goods and services. When your case is handled by class action lawyers, you get a minuscule settlement if that, while the lawyers pay themselves millions.
It's 100% different. Visa's agreement with the merchant does not forbid the merchant accepting American Express. The merchant made that decision on their own. Second, several merchants were not involved in the decision. If all the merchants got together and agreed to not accept American Express until they lower their fee, that would be collusion and clearly illegal. MCX has a unique/odd/questionable relationship with the member merchants. My money is on this being more afoul of the law than complying with it.
Nunyabinez
macrumors 68000
Yes, keep the law out of these things. There shouldn't be a law requiring seatbelts, certainly after enough people die not wearing seat belts the market will fix it.
No need to regulate pollution, if people find out a company is ruining the lakes and rivers, they will vote with their dollars by buying the more expensive products (since that company is properly handling their pollutants) and all the companies will stop polluting.
And certainly if people are willing to work at unsafe jobs they should be able to. The market will simply increase what those jobs pay so companies will make them safe on their own to reduce salaries.
And if a store doesn't want minorities shopping there, those minorities will shop somewhere else, hurting their bottom line, so again we don't need the law getting involved here.
Now, if you believe all that I have a bridge in Brookline that I'm selling cheap.
AlecZ
macrumors 65816
The lawyers don't pay themselves. If you don't think it's worth it to go for a settlement by class-action layers, you aren't forced to do it.
I guess they need more millions somehow in this dodgy economical climate? The poor people...... must be hard only having 4 Ferrari's and 3 houses.
What ever keeps the pressure up on these retailers, I'm all for. I agree CurrentC is DOA. However, how long will it take before that is clear to the retailers involved in this scheme. As far as I'm concerned, these particular retailers are as bad as lawyers and/or politicians.
Your statement about all new terminals having NFC built in is wrong. I would suggest you look at the terminals at WalMart that support chip cards but do not support NFC. Chip cards have nothing to do with NFC, and I think that is a common confusion.
Is it in favor of their own proprietary system? If Apple/Google blocked the CurrentC app from the App Stores would that not be a violation? I mean which is it?
Nunyabinez
macrumors 68000
A lot of people thought there was no merit in the DOJ case against Apple for collusion in the eBook market and they were wrong.
I have to agree with this. I don't see lawsuits because I cannot use my Amex in a particular store....I see this as a similar issue. Stores are only required to accept US currency in these United States.
On your first set of comments - are you really equating how people can get hurt or really suffer to not being able to use Apple Pay?
On the second item - there's absolutely nothing in common with Apple's collusion and what's happening here. And there are no real damages because customers can still get the same items at the same stores for the same price they always have. That wasn't the case with the eBooks lawsuit was it?
A zillion retailers got together to block the free markets from working.
quagmire
macrumors 604
While companies do have the right to choose the form of payment they want, but is it legal for them to be forced to deny other forms by another company?
It would be like Visa saying to merchants if they accept Visa cards, they can't also accept MasterCard.
JoJoCal19
macrumors 65816
For those calling this baseless, actually there is a good reason to investigate litigating.
Per the FCC regarding investigating antitrust behavior between MCX and others:
"27. Joint ventures that are collaborations between competitors may warrant antitrust scrutiny. The Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued by the U.S. antitrust agencies in April 2000 describe the principles for evaluating agreements among competitors and the analytical framework for doing so.23 Two broad categories of anticompetitive harm theories are (1) “exclusion” and (2) “overly inclusive joint venture.” For exclusion, harm may arise if a joint venture denies some key element to rival systems and thereby reduces competition.24 Whether this is a viable theory would depend on factors such as the freedom that the joint venture’s members have to participate in multiple mobile payment systems (“multi-home”), the extent to which the members, individually or collectively, have market power with respect to the denied element, and the availability of adequate substitutes for that element. For the “overly inclusive joint venture” theory, harm may arise if a joint venture’s membership is so expansive, or its rules sufficiently restrictive, as to prevent the emergence or viability of a rival mobile payment system that might otherwise threaten the joint venture’s market power. Factors relevant to this analysis include the joint venture’s exclusivity, membership scope, whether current members would help form competing systems but for the overly inclusive nature of the joint venture, and if so, the impact of such participation on the timeliness, likelihood, and sufficiency of such entry."
Per the FCC regarding investigating antitrust behavior between MCX and others:
"27. Joint ventures that are collaborations between competitors may warrant antitrust scrutiny. The Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued by the U.S. antitrust agencies in April 2000 describe the principles for evaluating agreements among competitors and the analytical framework for doing so.23 Two broad categories of anticompetitive harm theories are (1) “exclusion” and (2) “overly inclusive joint venture.” For exclusion, harm may arise if a joint venture denies some key element to rival systems and thereby reduces competition.24 Whether this is a viable theory would depend on factors such as the freedom that the joint venture’s members have to participate in multiple mobile payment systems (“multi-home”), the extent to which the members, individually or collectively, have market power with respect to the denied element, and the availability of adequate substitutes for that element. For the “overly inclusive joint venture” theory, harm may arise if a joint venture’s membership is so expansive, or its rules sufficiently restrictive, as to prevent the emergence or viability of a rival mobile payment system that might otherwise threaten the joint venture’s market power. Factors relevant to this analysis include the joint venture’s exclusivity, membership scope, whether current members would help form competing systems but for the overly inclusive nature of the joint venture, and if so, the impact of such participation on the timeliness, likelihood, and sufficiency of such entry."
djphat2000
macrumors 65816
IF any of these stores that opted out of letting Google wallet and Apple pay (or any NFC based payment) work gets hacked. Then what?
handsome pete
macrumors 68000
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.
How would the market decide if retailers collude to prevent competition? When businesses collude to restrict choice the consumer loses which is why most governments don't allow it...