Campaigner Launches $2 Billion Legal Action In UK Against Apple Over Wallet's 'Hidden Fees' (theguardian.com) 17
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from the Guardian: The financial campaigner James Daley has launched a 1.5 billion pound (approximately $1.5 billion) class action lawsuit against Apple over its mobile phone wallet, claiming the U.S. tech company blocked competition and charged hidden fees that ultimately harmed 50 million UK consumers. The lawsuit takes aim at Apple Pay, which they say has been the only contactless payment service available for iPhone users in Britain over the past decade.
Daley, who is the founder of the advocacy group Fairer Finance, claims this situation amounted to anti-competitive behavior and allowed Apple to charge hidden fees, ultimately pushing up costs for banks that passed charges on to consumers, regardless of whether they owned an iPhone. It is the first UK legal challenge to the company's conduct in relation to Apple Pay, and takes place months after regulators like the Competition and Markets Authority and the Payments Systems Regulator began scrutinising the tech industry's digital wallet services. The case has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will now decide whether the class action case can move forward.
[...] Daley's lawsuit alleges that Apple refused to give other app developers and outside businesses access to the contactless payment technology on its iPhones, which meant it could charge banks and card issuers fees on Apple Pay transactions that his lawyers say "are not in line with industry practice." The lawsuit notes that similar fees are not charged on equivalent payments on Android devices, which are built by Google. It says that the additional costs were borne by UK consumers, having been passed on through charges on a range of personal banking products ranging from current accounts, credit cards, to savings and mortgages. The lawsuit says that about 98% of consumers are exposed to banks that listed cards on Apple Pay, meaning the vast majority of the UK population may have been affected.
Daley, who is the founder of the advocacy group Fairer Finance, claims this situation amounted to anti-competitive behavior and allowed Apple to charge hidden fees, ultimately pushing up costs for banks that passed charges on to consumers, regardless of whether they owned an iPhone. It is the first UK legal challenge to the company's conduct in relation to Apple Pay, and takes place months after regulators like the Competition and Markets Authority and the Payments Systems Regulator began scrutinising the tech industry's digital wallet services. The case has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will now decide whether the class action case can move forward.
[...] Daley's lawsuit alleges that Apple refused to give other app developers and outside businesses access to the contactless payment technology on its iPhones, which meant it could charge banks and card issuers fees on Apple Pay transactions that his lawyers say "are not in line with industry practice." The lawsuit notes that similar fees are not charged on equivalent payments on Android devices, which are built by Google. It says that the additional costs were borne by UK consumers, having been passed on through charges on a range of personal banking products ranging from current accounts, credit cards, to savings and mortgages. The lawsuit says that about 98% of consumers are exposed to banks that listed cards on Apple Pay, meaning the vast majority of the UK population may have been affected.
Simple solution (Score:1)
Use your bloody physical card. Nobody has forced you to use a digital wallet. Ever
Re: (Score:3)
Use your bloody physical card.
No, I prefer ApplePay. Because of Face/TouchID no-one can steal my phone and pay for anything. They could get a few hundred quid's worth if they stole my card(s). If I use ApplePay online no-one can get a copy of my card details and buy things without my permission. As it happens I was a victim of card fraud just last week. My bank refunded me, but not everyone is as lucky. I don't know how they got my CVV2 but it couldn't have happened with ApplePay.
I don't know who this Daley man is but the fact that TFA
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Informative)
If you read the summary, you'll find they allege these fees affected everybody, not just the people that used contactless payment. You could contest this but you'd find there is economic theory about "who pays", even in a simple case like a tax, and serious thinkers wouldn't take your argument seriously.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
The extra cost of ApplePay to banks isn't borne by the individual using ApplePay (almost certainly Apple's rules for issuers using ApplePay will expressly forbid charging customers a fee for using it). Rather the cost of ApplePay to banks must covered by whatever base costs they pass on to all consumers (whether they individually use ApplePay or not). So no, you can't just "Use your bloody physical card" to avoid paying for ApplePay.
I imagine Apple would argue the use of ApplePay brings other cost savings (eg fraud prevention) and even "new business" that more than offset whatever Apple charges so there is in fact no net-cost to issuers that they have to pass on.
That might even be true!
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Informative)
Using a physical card gives up some privacy. Apple Pay and Google Pay give the retailer a one time card number that can't be associated with your real one.
Re: (Score:2)
It gives you more privacy wrt to the retailer, and less wrt Apple/Google/Samsung.
I make the case that mobile phone payment gives you overall less privacy than plastic cards because of the concentration of information. The coffee shop only knows I buy a coffee after lunch, which isn't much information. Payment processors Apple/Google/Samsung see the whole picture: medications, cigarettes, fast food, electronics, air travel etc. They can follow my footsteps and reconstruct a near perfect profiling.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, the case of begin regular at a small shop, e.g. food stand, mom&pop grocery, hairdresser, the bar where I'm a regular, the donation at weekly church service, there is no privacy benefit in hiding my name or card number, since in this case they know customers by the name, and they are not going to do anything with the collected data.
However there is a benefit in not sharing such information with payment processors. Apple really doesn't need to know what time I go home after drinking at the
Re:Litigants gotta litigate. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple is secretly pulling illegal tactics they should be held accountable for that, wouldn't you agree?
Re: Litigants gotta litigate. (Score:3)
This coming from someone in the land of ambulance-chasing-lawyers and people who sue their neighbours at the drop off a hat, I'll bet.
Conversion rate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK watch-dog failed (Score:2)
Hidden fees aren't so hidden outside the USA: The UK consumer watch-dog should have addressed this problem, years ago.
Luckily no Google hidden fees (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Luckily no Google hidden fees (Score:3)
If you read the privacy policy of Apple Pay, it does mention that Apple does collect info about your Apple Pay usage for ads ("Helping you to discover features that are most relevant to you", "Sending you communications about Apple Pay and other Apple products, services, and offers that may be of interest to you" is how they refer to it.)
"Apple may use this information to improve other Apple products and services, for marketing, and for fraud and s