MCX merchants restricted to CurrentC payment system, using Apple Pay incurs fines

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 163

    I am wondering what would happen to CurrentC if Apple and Google banned their personal information gathering app? I am also wondering what would happen if Apple pulled their products from WalMart since they won't let customers pay for them with Apple Pay? You know Jobs would have done both of these things in a New York minute.

  • Reply 42 of 163
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    muppetry wrote: »
    True, but credit cards do give additional rights and protections to the consumer, as well as the various cash back schemes, and so even if one doesn't need the credit, purchasing on a credit card is generally preferable.
    I get cash back on my debit card and enjoy most of the same "protections" and use it for most purchases (online is always credit card).
  • Reply 42 of 163
    solipsismx wrote: »
    MCX is doing nothing illegal by finding partners who willingly agree to a contract.

    If MCX were an independent entity then perhaps there would not be a problem; however, MCX is CO-OWNED by the very merchants who are members. In fact, they describe themselves as the first "merchant-owned mobile commerce network".

    Imagine if Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos got together and decided that Hachette's wholesale prices for eBooks were too high. In response they made an agreement that neither iBooks nor Kindle would carry Hachette books no matter how good a price Hachette offered either of them. In fact if either of them decided to sell a Hachette title, they would incur a fine to pay the other for doing so.

    If such an agreement existed there would be a huge cry out for the anti-competetive injustice of it all. People would be screaming that Apple and Amazon should not be allowed to collude against their supplier in order to drive that supplier out of business.

    And yet, here we are. Walmart contacted its competitors with a plan to setup MCX because Walmart was not happy with its suppliers for electronic transactions: Visa and MasterCard. Walmart felt that their sheer volume should command a better rate from the card processors, but when they did not get the rate they wanted they sought to collude with their competitors to remove Visa and MasterCard from the supply chain. MCX signed-up many merchants, each buying in to its "merchant-owned" model and each agreeing to pay a fine if they used any solution for mobile payments other than CurrentC.

    MCX is the very definition of colluding entities who are otherwise competing in a fair market system. An entity like Walmart is large enough that the mere threat of going with something like CurrentC may entice Visa or MasterCard to offer a lower transaction rate to Walmart, but MCX merchants are guaranteed that Walmart will NOT look out for their own interests and selfishly take a lower rate and abandon CurrentC because they are contractually obligated to pay a fine if they do.

    That certainly smells illegal to me. Perhaps you are correct that it is not, but by signing the petition, you are simply asking the DOJ to investigate it and verify that nothing illegal is happening here. It could be that Walmart's lawyers are so good that they found a way to collude with their competitors without actually violating the law. If so, that sucks for the consumer. But the DOJ should be protecting the consumer from this sort of collusive behavior. So I am asking folks to sign the petititon and ask the DOJ to decide.

    Petition is here: http://wh.gov/icBmj

    You can email the DOJ at: [email protected]
  • Reply 44 of 163
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That's an interesting notion.
    That foolishness didn't warrant a waste of tax dollars either.

    If you don't like the DOJ investigative solution for MCX go to one of these merchants try to make a mobile payment and when rejected ask to speak with the manager to complain and find out when they plan to adopt NFC payments. Then log onto their web sites and go to the customer complaint section and submit a complaint and request to enable NFC payments.. FYI I've already heard back from CVS and Rite Aid customer service both saying thay are evaluating their mobile payment options.
  • Reply 45 of 163
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    kjespoko wrote: »
    I propose we all boycott stores that are actively not accepting Apple Pay or Google wallet. To do so we set aside a specific day that all Apple Pay users go to one of the stores, get a ton of stuff in our carts. Go to check out and attempt to pay with Apple Pay, when it is declined or not accepted, say sorry looks like I can't pay. (Leave all other payment services at home) Totally sucks for the workers but it might send the message that people want to use every type of payment method.
    The two local grocery stores for me are Target and Publix. I'm not getting my groceries from Kroger. Nope.

    I would suggest, in lieu of a boycott that no one will notice, you contact those stores and express your displeasure. I did.

    However, if this continues, I intend to just write checks at these stores. I'm guessing they hate dealing with checks as much as I do.
  • Reply 46 of 163
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kennmsr wrote: »
    ... go to one of these merchants try to make a mobile payment and when rejected ask to speak with the manager to complain and find out when they plan to adopt NFC payments. Then log onto their web sites and go to the customer complaint section and submit a complaint and request to enable NFC payments.. FYI I've already heard back from CVS and Rite Aid customer service both saying thay are evaluating their mobile payment options.

    HELL NO! Doing all that is the opposite of convenience.
  • Reply 47 of 163
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    HELL NO! Doing all that is the opposite of convenience.
    So you won't temporarily forego the convenience in order to help secure a future with a more secure and better convenience?
  • Reply 48 of 163
    I just use my Amax card at CurrentC retailers it's less hassle for me, gets me points, costs them more. IMO CurrentC is DOA, people don't want to use money from their bank accounts or do some stupid shit with QR codes. Retailer execs are idiots and should be fired by shareholders for signing such punitive agreements with MCX.
  • Reply 49 of 163
    Interesting that these merchants apparently were able to allow Google Wallet based NFC transactions.
  • Reply 50 of 163
    blah64blah64 Posts: 990member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Right_said_fred View Post

     

    I prefer and use debit card much more than credit card. My debit card (also has visa logo on it) provides for fraud protection just the same. I don't need the free month float, and i don't have to remember to pay off my cc ever.


     

    You might think you have fraud protection, but it's at the whim of your issuer.  Credit card fraud protection is guaranteed by federal law.  Debit card protection is only in place by contract, and the terms of those contracts can typically change at any time.  I also believe that not all debit cards even provide contractual protection, in which case you would be totally liable for every dollar spent -- in other words, if you were foolish enough to keep $100k in your checking account and it was stolen, too bad, you lost every dollar.  In any case, don't let the banks fool you, CC protection is much stronger than debit.  

     

    If this has changed recently, I'll stand corrected, but that's what I learned after researching some time back. 

  • Reply 51 of 163
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    runbuh wrote: »
    So you won't temporarily forego the convenience in order to help secure a future with a more secure and better convenience?

    Crying to employees at a B&M store will do nothing to speed up the inevitable.
  • Reply 52 of 163
    bc2009 wrote: »
    ....

    Imagine if Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos got together and decided that Hachette's wholesale prices for eBooks were too high. In response they made an agreement that neither iBooks nor Kindle would carry Hachette books no matter how good a price Hachette offered either of them. In fact if either of them decided to sell a Hachette title, they would incur a fine to pay the other for doing so.

    If such an agreement existed there would be a huge cry out for the anti-competetive injustice of it all. People would be screaming that Apple and Amazon should not be allowed to collude against their supplier in order to drive that supplier out of business.

    .......


    You can email the DOJ at: [email protected]

    How ironic that you mention Amazon and Hachette, didn't Amazon recently hold Hachette hostage by not offering newly released titles until they got better pricing. As an author I would be upset if my book wasn't a best seller I would like some monies from the first printing and not have it discounted out of the gate, which is what Apple tried to prevent with its iBooks equal nation clause.
  • Reply 53 of 163

    "MCX has consumers' best interests in mind".........plus we'll get heavily fined if we don't use it.

  • Reply 54 of 163
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    I wouldn't guarantee this because we don't know yet if that would be legal. I haven't seen anything written about that possibility, either in the business web sites, or in the legal web sites. I suggested it, but only when I speak to someone who will know, hopefully tomorrow, will I have a useful opinion. None of our statements here are worth anything other than for speculation, unless someone here can state that they are an attorney in this area of practice.

     

    I don't think it matters if it's legal or not. What matters is if MCX believes Apple if they say they'll block the CurrentC App. Apple could simply block CurrentC and take their chances in court.

     

    Besides, it would be a good precedent setting case for Apple to decide once and for all if Apple has the right to control what Apps get into the store they created and own.

     

    Or do to MCX what Samsung did to them - tie things up in court so long that they're no longer relevant by the time things are settled.

  • Reply 55 of 163
    Accept both or lose my buisness .
    Which idiot would want to be a part of a system that is created and managed by a consortium of retailors and is directly linked to their bank?

    No way in hell.
  • Reply 56 of 163
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Crying to employees at a B&M store will do nothing to speed up the inevitable.

    The popcorn is in the microwave...
  • Reply 57 of 163
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    yojimbo007 wrote: »
    Accept both or lose my buisness .
    Which idiot would want to be a part of a system that is created and managed by a consortium of retailors and is directly linked to their bank?

    No way in hell.

    Not that different from PayPal linking directly to your bank account? Seems like a lot of people took them up on that offer.
  • Reply 58 of 163

    I would love to see Apple and Google pull the apps from their app stores.

    Why should Apple lend support to a group that is out to deny ApplePay ?

    You know nearly all Android owners won't be using this system anyway.

    If Apple, Google, the banks and the credit card companies all push back,

    this stupid idea will crumble.

  • Reply 59 of 163
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    sog35 wrote: »
    My debit card that is linked to my rewards checking account pays 3.25% interest if I have 12 transactions a month.

    That's a great intreat rate. What bank?
  • Reply 60 of 163
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    I will avoid MCX and sign petitions.
Sign In or Register to comment.