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
Only if they (allegedly) collude with other merchants to exclude another provider. The issue isn't NFC, it's the (alleged) collusion. (About which I have no strong opinion.)
And nobody else would pay them either for this type of stuff, if the lawyers weren't thinking up crazy ideas for lawsuits, and then going out and convincing lots of blokes who don't really care that much (to spend more than a minute of their own time) to sign up to make it a class action.
No one here (who isn't a lawyer) would think of spending their own time waiting in court to sue CVS.
Whereas Apple makes stuff, puts it in stores, and people (many here!) line up in front of the stores to have their money taken. Please!
... and your JD is from where? Which state bar is proud to call you a member?
Laughable!
Where's yours. I already stated I'm no lawyer. But at least I read entire threads before trying to insult someone
It's been stated here already, but it's worth repeating.
These places ALREADY accept Visa, MC and Amex. And using Apple Pay is exactly like using your card. So there is no difference as far as the merchant is concerned. Now, whether it's legal or not to block a WAY of using your credit card that is already accepted is another matter which may be worth pursuing. Although, I believe capitalism works best in the hands of the consumer rather than the lawyers. Let the consumer hold court and judge these places ill-fit to take our cash.
And again, Walgreens accepts Apple Pay. Soooo....
These places ALREADY accept Visa, MC and Amex. And using Apple Pay is exactly like using your card. So there is no difference as far as the merchant is concerned. Now, whether it's legal or not to block a WAY of using your credit card that is already accepted is another matter which may be worth pursuing. Although, I believe capitalism works best in the hands of the consumer rather than the lawyers. Let the consumer hold court and judge these places ill-fit to take our cash.
And again, Walgreens accepts Apple Pay. Soooo....
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with "discrimination," or treating you, the customer, differently from other customers. The allegation has to do with merchants banding together (allegedly) illegally to provide their own service while blocking a competing service.
And that's why it's also not about what CVS, or WalMart, or RiteAid chooses to accept as a payment method. The (alleged) violation of the law occurs when they all negotiate and agree with each other to block a certain payment method.
Nope, almost all chip and pin units have NFC now and there will be a mandate where they will have to switch to chip and pin in the very near future as I recall
That maybe the angle they go from. If you sign up for credit cards already. You may not be able to single out a specific way in which they work. Especially if your system already allows it to work. MC, Visa, Amex, etc may have rules in place that require a merchant to use whatever method they allow to accept payments, to work. Provided they have the hardware to support it. So, magnetic strip, they all have. IF they have NFC, they have to also support it, however it may be presented so long as it is supported by the card.
I'm just guessing on that, but it would be the only way I can think of this law suit sticking.
Also, with the new rules coming next year. They may have to support NFC style payments IF they are accepting credit cards of any kind. All cards will have Chip and Pin, and NFC no?
Right. Insofar as analyzing a potential claim, bear in mind 'collective action' and 'exclusion.' E.g. while an individual store may be free to embrace or refrain from a particular payment system, a consortium of competing stores explicitly banding together and excluding a particular method of payment may run afoul of regulations.
The part that grabs my attention in the source blog post is this paragraph:
Would there be any merit to the lawsuit if they had turned it off in response to Apple Pay, after going so long accepting it before?
The fact they turned it off after Apple Pay was released smells rotten to me but I'm also not a lawyer
Would there be any merit to the lawsuit if they had turned it off in response to Apple Pay, after going so long accepting it before?
The fact they turned it off after Apple Pay was released smells rotten to me but I'm also not a lawyer
Uh, I don't think you can force someone to accept your new form of moon-payment.
This is like saying that you want to sue to force them to accept bitcoin or something.
Yeah, NFC is neat. Losing is sucked. But it wasn't some major payment system that millions of people used.
Shop elsewhere, don't sue them.
This is like saying that you want to sue to force them to accept bitcoin or something.
Yeah, NFC is neat. Losing is sucked. But it wasn't some major payment system that millions of people used.
Shop elsewhere, don't sue them.
What I find interesting is the issue over the word method. Because I suspect it's an important element.
These stores and the consortium are still allowing its customers to pay with exactly the same "methods." They have only crippled one of the technologies in which to do so. Cash, Credit, Store Cards, etc are still all accepted as payment methods. The technology being used has been adjusted.
Any lawsuit would and should only be between the companies involved. Consumers are collateral damage in the "war."
MCX sounds like a problem in search of a solution.
Do you also have to give the 'secret handshake', and stand on one leg when you do it?
Rube Goldberg would be so proud...
Do you also have to give the 'secret handshake', and stand on one leg when you do it?
Rube Goldberg would be so proud...
Maybe, but ...
I don't think it's quite the same as taking one type of credit card but not another?
As you said, they can accept (or decline) whatever forms of payment they wish (as in any lender's payment product .... VISA, M/C, Discover, AmEx, PayPal, or even Bitcoin).
But locking down a payment technology so consumers can only move the money through the "conduit" if they use a specific company (regardless of which payment source they're trying to pay with) is a bit different.
IMO, this would be a bit more like a company saying they'll accept personal checks, but then finding out they'll only take your check if it comes from Bank of America; not Capital One or Wells Fargo or Chase.
I don't think it's quite the same as taking one type of credit card but not another?
As you said, they can accept (or decline) whatever forms of payment they wish (as in any lender's payment product .... VISA, M/C, Discover, AmEx, PayPal, or even Bitcoin).
But locking down a payment technology so consumers can only move the money through the "conduit" if they use a specific company (regardless of which payment source they're trying to pay with) is a bit different.
IMO, this would be a bit more like a company saying they'll accept personal checks, but then finding out they'll only take your check if it comes from Bank of America; not Capital One or Wells Fargo or Chase.
Where's yours. I already stated I'm no lawyer. But at least I read entire threads before trying to insult someone
You specify that you are not a lawyer, yet you state quite unequivocally as fact (and I quote)
The statutes do not require any competing service from being blocked... You seem to fail to understand that the issue involves competitive enterprises banding together in a group with agreements which can and do most definitely affect pricing policies and decisions.
This is good. The law firm will rake in millions, everyone with an iPhone 6 or 6+ don't forget to respond to the email awarding you $1.32 while they net tens of millions of dollars.
Listen, this is no different then a store refusing to take checks, Amex, discover, ect.
Listen, this is no different then a store refusing to take checks, Amex, discover, ect.
Apple have always arbitrarily rejected apps for their app store, no one cries foul then. They also don't allow any payment methods other than their own where they take 30%. They even reach beyond the app store and forbid the mere mention of other channels for purchase and (used to) demand that the products/services offered within apps in their app store are not sold cheaper in any other place.