Apple Pay bags Cupertino another antitrust lawsuit

Apple has been hit by another class-action lawsuit over its mobile payment service – this time in the US with much of the same logic as a similar case in the EU. Filed in California federal court by Iowa-based Affinity Credit Union, the lawsuit [PDF] alleges that Apple violates the Sherman Act by tying Apple Pay to its mobile …

[Rich 2]

Tectonically slow

“… which the European Commission's VP for competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said is illegal under EU competition laws.”

So, that seems fairly clear!

So why do we need a years-long investigation followed by a delay followed by more investigations to establish this?

Why not just charge the buggers, take them to court and decide how best to stomp on them (sorry - innocent until proven guilty) there? It could be over in a couple of months rather than decades

[Gene Cash]

Re: Tectonically slow

Because you can't charge them and hope to successfully prosecute them unless you have convincing evidence of their crimes.

That's what the investigations dig up. You have to sit there and go "ok X is illegal, and here is the proof where they're doing X"

Plus you have to do this in an ironclad formal follow-all-the-rules dot-the-Is-and-cross-the-Ts fashion where Apple's lawyers can't pick it apart and destroy it, which is their job, and they're good at it.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Tectonically slow

"So why do we need a years-long investigation followed by a delay followed by more investigations to establish this?"

Because no matter how slam dunk it may appear, just because a politician or even a Government say something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it is, or if it is, by how much it is illegal. Government seem to be expert at only one thing. Making fuzzy grey laws with lots of loopholes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get your hopes up.

This is a suit where one pack of wolves is suing another pack of wolves. One of them is going to try to blend in with the flock and shout down with the man, but in perfect Animal farm fashion, they are more interested fleecing sheep than the other wolves.

Be clear eyed about this, this suit is about breaking Apples lock on the devices so the incumbent payment processors can charge MORE than Apple, not less. The result of a win will look like progress. "look they have to allow other processors equal access to Apple devices, we are are equal now!"

Only some will be more equal then others, and the scope of this suit will leave out the fact that the incumbents have a stranglehold on the POS terminals and card readers. So once they can force their way onto Apple devices, they can disable support for their competition on the device on the other end of the transaction. Any settlement that does not address equal and open access to both the device wallets AND the merchant side hardware, contracts, and fees will just be opening Pandora's box. I had a long conversation with the owner of my favorite sandwich shop, and he was hurting pretty bad. One of the reasons he was on the ropes was the shift away from cash during the pandemic, and the sky high fees on square, cash app, and the older CC merchant networks.

To be clear Apple's own arguments are disingenuous and self serving, but the fees they are asking for are TINY by industry standards. Unlike the App store, this isn't about Apple being the sole operator of a rent seeking cartel, it's about Apple breaking into someone else's.

[djnapkin]

Re: Don't get your hopes up.

In the article itr was pointed out that on Android no fees are charged. Therefore I'd reckon your claim that "incumbent payment processors can charge MORE than Apple, not less." has no basis.

[BrownishMonstr]

Re: Don't get your hopes up.

Aye, but don't forget Google are also more interested in selling data, so it might have some other benefit to them.

One of the arguments I read in the Verge's article is that Apple "also don't allow the fees to be passed onto the customers". So, if Apple was okay with companies passing the fees onto the customer, this lawsuit wouldn't have even been brought up in the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Don't get your hopes up.

Google doesn't sell data. It sells the targeting built on those data. Just like Apple does on its devices.

The difference is Apple is so vertically integrated it knows it can monetize everything that happens on its devices, while Google knows it has to let some doors open to have other companies build Android phones and keep their prices of some of them below Apple ones, without which it can't hoard data.

"So, if Apple was okay with companies passing the fees onto the customer, this lawsuit wouldn't have even been brought up in the US."

Depends on how much customers in the US are used to pay those fees when buying.