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
For your benefit - every time I post - I will put the preface "in my opinion" - that should help you.
I think that's a different situation. The Mom and Pop restaurants that don't have NFC terminals shouldn't to if they don't want to. If a business already has NFC and blocks it from working with Apple Pay, it's everyone's right to talk about their disappointment and shop somewhere else if they feel strongly about it.
Apple Pay doesn't block any other payer technology from working alongside it.
That'll work.
The whole reason I jumped on your post was the manner in which you stated it... as fact rather than opinion.
People cry foul every time Apple rejects apps in their app store....for what they claim is an arbitrary reason. Do we need to rewind to last week and the calculator app fiasco.
The subtle difference is that a merchant has no skin in the game of Discover vs Amex vs MasterCard vs Visa. They do when the retailer, say, owns Discover and blocks MasterCard in their chain. Since RiteAid and CVS are MCX members, blocking NFC payments (MCX competitors) is shakier. Especially when they've pretty much said it is to prevent things like Softcard, Google Wallet, and especially Apple Pay from getting entrenched before they can hit the market with CurrentC.
Not that I think there's much of a case here either, but the details matter a hell of a lot.
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a vampire?
A: A vampire only sucks blood at night.
The same law firm is investigating a similar class action suite again Apple as they do not support Dell computers for installation of the OSX operating system. :-/
Of course, but that's not what's being discussed here
People complain, but they don't say it's illegal and sue Apple over it
Visa chip cards, for example, while still using traditional magnetic stripe technology also support Visa PayWave which is NFC. This allows these newer, more secure cards to be used virtually anywhere.
Yeah, this is pretty stupid. But this payment system is never going to make it anyway. Sounds like some lawyers are pissed that their shiny new iPhone 6 isn't accepted when refilling the "prescription" pain killers they keep dosing up on. Unfortunately we'll have to wait until this payment system inevitably gets hacked (well, hacked again, but this time with more sensitive information) and then you can sue them. Rite Aid and CVS can do what they want. But so can we, and oh look, there's a Walgreens on every corner.
In the libertarian fervor to attack this, people are not noticing some details in the language of this suit. CVS and rite aid are accused of *colluding with* MCX in a way that violates antitrust law. They allege that there is an organised effort underway to block or delay growth of a competitor. They allege that CVS and rite aid are party to this. Proving their case will be somewhat like proving price fixing or organised crime activities. They will need to show that there has been collusion on this amongst MCX, CVS and rite aid.
There is NO slippery slope here of stores in general being forced to do anything.
There is NO slippery slope here of stores in general being forced to do anything.
Having worked for a major credit card company for over 14 years now (I work in the merchant services division), I can say this is nothing more than a law firm trying to make a name for themselves.
The suit is thin at best.
The antitrust angle is really reaching.
Card issuers have had restrictions on payment acceptance polices for ages.
Merchants can and regularly do, refuse payment types and/or methods that they are not contractually obligated to accept.
As for consumer harm, there is none.
Consumers can still pay using the card(s) tied to their Apple Pay account.
They just can't use Apple Pay method.
They're inconvenienced at best.
The suit is thin at best.
The antitrust angle is really reaching.
Card issuers have had restrictions on payment acceptance polices for ages.
Merchants can and regularly do, refuse payment types and/or methods that they are not contractually obligated to accept.
As for consumer harm, there is none.
Consumers can still pay using the card(s) tied to their Apple Pay account.
They just can't use Apple Pay method.
They're inconvenienced at best.
Throw the book at them!
Ha ha... Just kidding.
Seriously, though. I was definitely miffed, when this didn't happen. My other half said that a CVS store associate was downright rude about it, when he asked to pay with
Pay.
Pay is totally awesome, and is THE most secure way to pay for things, at retailers (or, probably, just about anywhere?), on the planet.
There have been some comments about how things like retailer rewards, and retailer credit/debit cards can't be hooked up with Pay.
I can only imagine that this is in the future, ESPECIALLY if receives enough feedback from people.
Anyhow, I would LOVE to pay for stuff, at these retailers with Pay.
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!
Ha ha... Just kidding.
Seriously, though. I was definitely miffed, when this didn't happen. My other half said that a CVS store associate was downright rude about it, when he asked to pay with
Pay. Pay is totally awesome, and is THE most secure way to pay for things, at retailers (or, probably, just about anywhere?), on the planet.There have been some comments about how things like retailer rewards, and retailer credit/debit cards can't be hooked up with
Pay.I can only imagine that this is in the future, ESPECIALLY if
receives enough feedback from people.Anyhow, I would LOVE to pay for stuff, at these retailers with
Pay.FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!
clearly, you are no lawyer.
yes, a merchant can individually choose. no, a collection of merchants cannot openly band together to exclude another business. it has to be a free market and they have to do it individually. thats the angle of this possible case.
as much fun as it is to beat the libertarian drum, we have marketplace rules.
----------
the merchants do have that right to make that decision, but they cant collude together w/ other competitors to make that decision.
Apple can arbitrarily reject apps for its app store. If Apple, Google, and Microsoft got together and agreed to bar all e-readers other than their agreed standard, you think the DoJ wouldn't come calling?
Wrong.
If they are contractually obligated as part of a consortium or larger group, they can legally refuse to accept payment methods per the rules of the contract.
It simply sounds like these rules were activated when Apple Pay went live.
Go and try and use your Amex card at any participating authorized Super Bowl venue. (Arena, hotels, restaurants, vendors, etc.)
The contract states they cannot accept any credit payment from any card where the issuer is not under the Visa program.
The specific issue here is the collusion.
Was this merely meeting the pre-arranged terms of a contract exclusivity that was put in place long before Apple Pay was announced? ("Um you guys agreed to an exclusivity clause, turn it off or you're in violation.")
Or was there a specific discussion to turn of NFC to stunt or cut out Apple Pay? ("Hey guys, Apple Pay is really popular. Let's just it off for not to stop it.")
Or, at what point does premeditated or contract exclusive become anti-trust collusion? That's the question.
If you believe anything that MCX or the pharmacies have said, than this is just meeting their contractual obligation to be exclusive, not colluding specifically after the fact to cut out Apple Pay or anyone else out. I don't know of anything legally wrong with that.
I think Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe is just trying to get publicity and this is a non-case. As much as I want Apple Pay to be available everywhere and I'll boycott MCX merchants in the meantime.
Was this merely meeting the pre-arranged terms of a contract exclusivity that was put in place long before Apple Pay was announced? ("Um you guys agreed to an exclusivity clause, turn it off or you're in violation.")
Or was there a specific discussion to turn of NFC to stunt or cut out Apple Pay? ("Hey guys, Apple Pay is really popular. Let's just it off for not to stop it.")
Or, at what point does premeditated or contract exclusive become anti-trust collusion? That's the question.
If you believe anything that MCX or the pharmacies have said, than this is just meeting their contractual obligation to be exclusive, not colluding specifically after the fact to cut out Apple Pay or anyone else out. I don't know of anything legally wrong with that.
I think Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe is just trying to get publicity and this is a non-case. As much as I want Apple Pay to be available everywhere and I'll boycott MCX merchants in the meantime.
You can't make any one accept Apple pay. If they don't that's their problem. That's their business decision. Doesn't matter how ****** a decision it is its still not our problem. If you don't like it simply don't shop there.
In that case I think it depends if it's a monopoly or they have significant dominant market share. But, no, exclusivity alone isn't illegal. Conspiring to cut someone else out that is already there might be.
In this case they agreed to be exclusive for a period of time long before Apple Pay was ever announced. Also they aren't a monopoly. People can (and are) shop at competing stores. I'm no lawyer but it doesn't sound illegal.
The CVS store here in my small town has the new terminals. Slot in the bottom for the chipped card, plus it has NFC. They have had these a couple of months, and people were using their Google Wallet on them. I was using my Chase "Blink" card on it.
I just tried using Apple Pay last week. The NFC was working, because my phone lit up with the default payment card on the lock screen, asking for my fingerprint, which I did, and which the NFC terminal accepted, "payment processing", it said. Then, after churning for a few seconds, it said payment method rejected, alternate method required.
So it seems they are able to leave the NFC function working but program the thing inside to accept or reject various payment methods. Just having NFC does not guarantee Apple Pay will work.
BTW, at another local store I see new Vodafone terminals with the slot for chipped cards, but with no apparent NFC region at the top, and no wifi symbol anywhere I could see. However, I held my iPhone up to it, and sure enough Apple Pay lit up and went right through. People probably think I am daft, now, because I scan every terminal I go to with my phone to see if I get a reaction.
Last edited:
I don't think the issue is accepting or not accepting any form of payment, it's colluding to use their market power to push out the competition in favor of their competing company (MCX.)
It's about cutting out Apple Pay to give MCX an advantage using their market power, not about stores accepting payments.
But (as I already said) I don't think there was this type of collusion. There is a contract in place to be exclusive (for some unknown period of time) and that exclusivity doesn't sound illegal, especially since it was inked up to 3 years before Apple Pay was ever announced.
And as pointed out, customer can shop at and Apple Pay is accepted at competitors. So there isn't a monopoly issue as far as I know.
Anti-trust collusion on the other hand, that's where they want to dig into emails and phone calls to find out specifically what was said before NFC wast tuned off. The choice of words alone can make the difference.