4 ms·

How is it possibly fair to demand repayment for two decades of "excessive fees" which are not defined in the law and were only clarified by the EU in the last t

How is it possibly fair to demand repayment for two decades of "excessive fees" which are not defined in the law and were only clarified by the EU in the last two years. Unless I'm missing some crucial information, this just looks like a shakedown of an American company.

jayflux 10y ago
Isn't this what happened with Apple in Ireland? They only decided now that it's wrong, yet they want apple to pay back for the last 20 or so years? Even though back then it wasn't seen so much as a problem.
- AlphaSite 10y ago
  Well no, in that case they decided that Ireland violated the treaties it previously signed. I can't compare to this case but that was only retroactive in that they discovered the problem later.
  - jayflux 10y ago
    which is even more confusing, as the govt is being rewarded for violating treaties by being paid back all the tax. Was the govt not more in the wrong than Apple was? (sorry, thread hijack)
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      And presumably all the other states will want a share of those profits transferred to Ireland to avoid tax.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      It's not a reward for the government, hence why they have lodged an appeal. Ireland has a lot more to lose by accepting that tax money than they would gain.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    Just like the Cement price fixing cartel was only found and prosecuted only after it had been running for years.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
anon1385 10y ago
> this just looks like a shakedown of an American company. Mastercard being American has nothing to do with it. UK banks have had to repay literally billions of pounds for similar things. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/27/landmark-ruling-lloyds-tsb-overdraft-charges https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/27/landmark-rulin...
Eridrus 10y ago
Depends on how you try and reason about this; The fact that there was no clear definition doesn't mean it wasn't excessive beforehand, just that the definition wasn't clear. To the extent that this doesn't request damages beyond the fees collected, you could interpret this as a decade-long interest free loan to Mastercard. Obviously that's a bit of a facetious interpretation, but the fact that something wasn't spelled out as illegal doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Of course business prefer to get away with as much as they can, but there's no reason we have to accept this as the way things should be.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  "Get away with"? We're talking about market pricing decisions. There's no morality involved. Is every business in the EU supposed to be worried about violating some undefined threshold of "excessive profit"?
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    "Market pricing decisions" are not exempt from moral judgements. See: recent medical pricing scandals in the US; Martin Shkreli/Daraprim, Mylan/Epi-Pen Mastercard isn't really in the same bucket, but we do have anti-monopoly/anti-trust measures which aren't particularly well defined and seem pretty applicable here.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      MasterCard or Visa aren't a monopoly/duopoly. At most, there's some inertia getting people to switch. The banks had the same problem getting people to use them in the first place, and it's a solvable problem if Visa decided to abuse its power. They aren't comparable at all to the old railroad, steel, and oil companies. Credit cards are an extension of the idea of a promissory note - a piece of paper with "I agree to pay you $X" written on it. It's way more practical for businesses to not use them to process payments than it is to quit using oil, or to quit using the railroads.
      - 10y ago
Scirra_Tom 10y ago
They are defined in the anti-competition laws. The fees charged were anti competitive.
antisthenes 10y ago
I could just as easily make an argument that the American company was shaking down European consumers for 16 years and accumulated an unfair windfall. Also, when dealing with entities of this size, laws really take a backseat. The effectiveness of any law is directly proportional to the economic damage you can inflict on the opponent.

jayflux 10y ago

Isn't this what happened with Apple in Ireland? They only decided now that it's wrong, yet they want apple to pay back for the last 20 or so years? Even though back then it wasn't seen so much as a problem.

AlphaSite 10y ago
Well no, in that case they decided that Ireland violated the treaties it previously signed. I can't compare to this case but that was only retroactive in that they discovered the problem later.
- jayflux 10y ago
  which is even more confusing, as the govt is being rewarded for violating treaties by being paid back all the tax. Was the govt not more in the wrong than Apple was? (sorry, thread hijack)
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    And presumably all the other states will want a share of those profits transferred to Ireland to avoid tax.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    It's not a reward for the government, hence why they have lodged an appeal. Ireland has a lot more to lose by accepting that tax money than they would gain.
- lostboys67 10y ago
  Just like the Cement price fixing cartel was only found and prosecuted only after it had been running for years.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

anon1385 10y ago

> this just looks like a shakedown of an American company. Mastercard being American has nothing to do with it. UK banks have had to repay literally billions of pounds for similar things. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/27/landmark-ruling-lloyds-tsb-overdraft-charges https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/27/landmark-rulin...

Eridrus 10y ago

Depends on how you try and reason about this; The fact that there was no clear definition doesn't mean it wasn't excessive beforehand, just that the definition wasn't clear. To the extent that this doesn't request damages beyond the fees collected, you could interpret this as a decade-long interest free loan to Mastercard. Obviously that's a bit of a facetious interpretation, but the fact that something wasn't spelled out as illegal doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Of course business prefer to get away with as much as they can, but there's no reason we have to accept this as the way things should be.

marcoperaza 10y ago
"Get away with"? We're talking about market pricing decisions. There's no morality involved. Is every business in the EU supposed to be worried about violating some undefined threshold of "excessive profit"?
- Eridrus 10y ago
  "Market pricing decisions" are not exempt from moral judgements. See: recent medical pricing scandals in the US; Martin Shkreli/Daraprim, Mylan/Epi-Pen Mastercard isn't really in the same bucket, but we do have anti-monopoly/anti-trust measures which aren't particularly well defined and seem pretty applicable here.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    MasterCard or Visa aren't a monopoly/duopoly. At most, there's some inertia getting people to switch. The banks had the same problem getting people to use them in the first place, and it's a solvable problem if Visa decided to abuse its power. They aren't comparable at all to the old railroad, steel, and oil companies. Credit cards are an extension of the idea of a promissory note - a piece of paper with "I agree to pay you $X" written on it. It's way more practical for businesses to not use them to process payments than it is to quit using oil, or to quit using the railroads.
    - 10y ago

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

They are defined in the anti-competition laws. The fees charged were anti competitive.

antisthenes 10y ago

I could just as easily make an argument that the American company was shaking down European consumers for 16 years and accumulated an unfair windfall. Also, when dealing with entities of this size, laws really take a backseat. The effectiveness of any law is directly proportional to the economic damage you can inflict on the opponent.