Apple Pay antitrust lawsuit accuses Apple of coercing consumers, excessive fees
A class action lawsuit alleging Apple Pay is violating antitrust law by coercing consumers to use the Wallet app got the go-ahead from a California judge Wednesday.

Apple Pay
Apple Pay is an important part of Apple's ecosystem and is offered during device setup. The prominence of the Apple Wallet and its features have gained antitrust attention before.
According to a report from Reuters, Illinois' Consumers Co-op Credit Union and Iowa's Affinity Credit Union and GreenState Credit Union are accusing Apple of antitrust practices with Apple Pay and have proposed a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit made it through U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White with little change, meaning Apple will have to face the charges in court.
The judge threw out a tying claim that accused Apple of requiring iPhone owners to use Apple Pay and forego other wallets. The lawsuit is focused on the prominence of Apple Pay on iPhone versus the customer choice found on Android.
"We are happy with this ruling," Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email. "There are billions at stake so getting by the motion (to dismiss) largely intact was huge for the class."
The class action lawsuit uses the Sherman antitrust law as the basis for the proposal. It means the court must determine that Apple is enforcing a 100% monopoly over the domestic market for tap-and-pay wallets on iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch.
The complaint alleges Apple's conduct forces more than 4,000 banks and credit unions that use Apple Pay to pay at least $1 billion in excess fees. This harms the consumers by minimizing the incentive to make Apple Pay safer and easier to use -- which would occur if Apple allowed wallet competition.
The report states that Apple sought a dismissal of the lawsuit and failed. The company said it charged "nominal" fees to smaller card issuers and that the plaintiffs ignored the "competitive reality" that consumers could pay with cash, card, or other means.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
You: "No one forces me or any other iPhone/Apple Watch owner to use Apple Pay!"
Article: "The judge threw out a tying claim that accused Apple of requiring iPhone owners to use Apple Pay and forego other wallets." - So the claim you're arguing against isn't even part of the lawsuit.
The entirety of the rest of your argument falls flat because it's primarily misleading and deflective. The complaint alleges Apple's conduct forces more than 4,000 banks and credit unions that use Apple Pay to pay at least $1 billion in excess fees. This is a B2B issue, not a consumer facing issue. Nothing in your argument even comes close to addressing the actual issues raised in the suit. Seems as if you found a convenient soapbox for your opinions, regardless of whether or not they relate to the topic.
The part that references having a claim thrown out seems to imply that it was just a part and the rest is moving forward as planned.
I've long rejected Apple's claim that Apple doesn't harm competition with Apple Pay and have only seen that stance harden.
Just recently I had to setup a new iPhone and the setup process definitely pushes the user to include cards in Apple Wallet/ Pay.
Given how these credit card networks have been treated since their inception, it is no surprise that Apple is getting a similar treatment because it is sitting between consumers and their banks, and charging a nominal fee. It also means we aren't going to hear an end to Apple Pay lawsuits any time soon.
It was something like 'Add Card' and the card number itself had been pulled from somewhere. She had not enabled Apple Pay on the previous phone.
That is a push IMO.
It was also worded in a way (this is a Spanish system so I can't be literal in English) that made her doubt about what was going on and she had to check with me before continuing. That in itself is indicative that the wording was not as clear as it should be.
I'm not surprised. Even after all these years, if you don't have automatic system updates enabled and you get a notification of a system update and hit the 'No' button, (no meaning you don't want to update) does the system still update all by itself if it finds a Wi-Fi network while you are sleeping?
'No' is supposed to mean 'no' but Apple would interpret it as 'not right now' instead and actually tell you on the same page as the 'no' button that it would update the system if it was connected to a Wi-Fi network in the early hours of the morning!
The question here is, how many people that hit the 'no' button are even aware of that condition? I ask because although it is there, it is not obvious, right from the text size, colour and placement of the information.
The message was (is ?) designed to be missed easily. Someone went out of their way to make it happen like that. Someone made a deliberate effort to get the update installed even when the user thought they were saying 'no'.
Quite literally Apple designing notification communication to get the update installed anyway, even when the user answered 'no' to the update proposal.
I've lost count of the times I've had to get my wife and others to do a double take on that screen and point out the 'hidden' text.
So they’re trying to negotiate with Apple by lawsuit. This will not end well for them, since we all went through this when Apple Pay came out, and the banks were forced to cave.