Welcome to the iMore Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. Thread AuthorThread Author   #1  
    mikec#IM's Avatar
    iPhone Experts

    Posts
    890 Posts
    Global Posts
    947 Global Posts

    Default The next class action?

    Now Apple is refusing to accept cash for iPhones in stores (but it's okay for other products).

    I didn't think retail storefront companies could refuse legal tender. I bet some lawyers are salivating about this, with Apple discriminating against people without credit cards.

    A straight move to block resales to Euroland, where the weak dollar is driving prices up.
  2. #2  
    Mike Overbo's Avatar
    TC / Phone Different

    Posts
    130 Posts
    Global Posts
    341 Global Posts

    Default

    Interesting. You have a link?

    link: news.yahoo.com
    Mike Overbo
    TC Podcaster, with Treo 680
    TiPB / PD Editor Emeritus and Podcaster, with 8GB iPhone
  3. #3  
    surur's Avatar
    iPhone Specialist

    Posts
    1,412 Posts
    Global Posts
    6,660 Global Posts

    Default

    According to Engadget posters, Apple can put any conditions they want on payment. They know Apple fans will put up with anything in any case.

    Surur
  4. #4  
    marcol's Avatar
    iPhone Experts

    Posts
    766 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,211 Global Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    A straight move to block resales to Euroland, where the weak dollar is driving prices up.
    Down?
  5. #5  
  6. Thread AuthorThread Author   #6  
    mikec#IM's Avatar
    iPhone Experts

    Posts
    890 Posts
    Global Posts
    947 Global Posts

    Default

    This is true...at the Federal level. But what about the state level? They can regulate commerce practices, and some may take issue saying this is discrimination (esp. since it is just iPhone, and not all their products.)

    Whether or not it discrimniatory doesn't matter - the lawyers will find a way when the $$$ are there.

    I'm hard pressed to find an example of a consumer electronic retail company not accepting cash (or gift cards!) for a particular item, but accepting it for all others.

    But hey, this is Apple, so they forge their own path.
  7. #7  
    Mike Overbo's Avatar
    TC / Phone Different

    Posts
    130 Posts
    Global Posts
    341 Global Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    This is true...at the Federal level. But what about the state level? They can regulate commerce practices, and some may take issue saying this is discrimination (esp. since it is just iPhone, and not all their products.)

    Whether or not it discrimniatory doesn't matter - the lawyers will find a way when the $$$ are there.

    I'm hard pressed to find an example of a consumer electronic retail company not accepting cash (or gift cards!) for a particular item, but accepting it for all others.

    But hey, this is Apple, so they forge their own path.
    I think the federal law trumps state law where it comes to federal money, but I'm not a lawyer or anything.

    About Apple forging their own path, for sure. It's a pretty teen-unfriendly way of doing things.
    Mike Overbo
    TC Podcaster, with Treo 680
    TiPB / PD Editor Emeritus and Podcaster, with 8GB iPhone
  8. #8  
    cmaier's Avatar
    iPhone Pro

    Posts
    728 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,656 Global Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    This is true...at the Federal level. But what about the state level? They can regulate commerce practices, and some may take issue saying this is discrimination (esp. since it is just iPhone, and not all their products.)

    Whether or not it discrimniatory doesn't matter - the lawyers will find a way when the $$$ are there.

    I'm hard pressed to find an example of a consumer electronic retail company not accepting cash (or gift cards!) for a particular item, but accepting it for all others.

    But hey, this is Apple, so they forge their own path.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_%28law%29
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com: Tic-tac-toe with a twist, for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/solitaire.html: Vegas Solitaire for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/blackjack.html: Vegas Blackjack for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/job.html: Jacks or Better Video Poker for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/dw.html: Deuces Wild Video Poker for iPhone
  9. Thread AuthorThread Author   #9  
    mikec#IM's Avatar
    iPhone Experts

    Posts
    890 Posts
    Global Posts
    947 Global Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Overthrow View Post
    I think the federal law trumps state law where it comes to federal money, but I'm not a lawyer or anything.

    About Apple forging their own path, for sure. It's a pretty teen-unfriendly way of doing things.
    Not true - at least not with state commerce (within it's borders, as long as it does not affect interstate commerce). State can regulate product purchases, etc. This is not regulating the money, but rather the commerce (intrastate). Two different things.
  10. Thread AuthorThread Author   #10  
    mikec#IM's Avatar
    iPhone Experts

    Posts
    890 Posts
    Global Posts
    947 Global Posts

    Default

    Quoting wiki as your source is nice, but those don't apply here.

    The first deals with INTERSTATE commerce. The second deals with state law conflicting with federal.

    INTRASTATE commerce is still in the realms of the states. Also, there is no federal law that would conflict with a state discrimiation claim.

    There in lies the rub. The states (or people could sue in state courts) and go after Apple. Will they? Who knows.

    Still, when is the last time a retail business refuses cash for one item, but not another? I can buy a $2,500 Mac with cash, but not a $399 iPhone?
  11. #11  
    cmaier's Avatar
    iPhone Pro

    Posts
    728 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,656 Global Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Not true - at least not with state commerce (within it's borders, as long as it does not affect interstate commerce). State can regulate product purchases, etc. This is not regulating the money, but rather the commerce (intrastate). Two different things.
    There's a famous case where the supreme court found that a law telling a farmer how much grain he could grow FOR HIS OWN USE was inTERstate commerce, because in aggregate it affects national commerce.

    Here we have advertising/solicitation on TV and the internet, both of which are interstate media, a company with national presence and stores in many states, probably incorporated in one state and headquartered in another, selling phones to use on a phone network that crosses state borders and which is regulated by the FCC, and the issue comes down to whether federally printed and issued currency can be used or whether credit cards, which are issued by federally insured and regulated banks and which have their transactions cleared on interstate or international banking networks, can be required.

    Given the case law, this particular case seems pretty interstate to me. Imagine the effect on interstate commerce if no one could require identification, credit checks, etc. prior to engaging in a transaction.

    I'm willing to place a friendly wager on what happens, if you'd like :-)

    Update: The case to which I referred: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    If you don't like wikipedia, I can PM you a copy of the actual decision by the court.
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com: Tic-tac-toe with a twist, for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/solitaire.html: Vegas Solitaire for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/blackjack.html: Vegas Blackjack for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/job.html: Jacks or Better Video Poker for iPhone
    http://www.tictacwhoa.com/dw.html: Deuces Wild Video Poker for iPhone

Posting Permissions