[Rolo]

Originally posted by sudden@Apr 13 2005, 05:57 AM
If they were legally considered a monopoly (which you surely dont need 100% of the market to be considered) then they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

As far as I know, they're not considered a monopoly though, so there is no censorship issue.

Whether or not they SHOULD be looked upon as a monopoly is another question however.

The Paycom Vs. MasterCard case might give a hint how the courts look at it...

District Court Dismisses All Claims Brought Against MasterCard by Paycom Billing Services

PURCHASE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 4, 2005--MasterCard International announced today that a U.S. District court judge has dismissed all claims brought against MasterCard International by Paycom Billing Services, Inc. The judge ruled that Paycom suffered no antitrust harm as a result of MasterCard's rules or policies.

"MasterCard is pleased that the court agreed that the plaintiff, an aggregator of payment services, failed to demonstrate that the policies at issue in this case do not harm competition. The judge also recognized that the plaintiff has multiple options for accepting payment, and could choose not to participate in our network," said Eileen Simon, MasterCard associate general counsel.

Aggregators provide payment card services to multiple merchants, including online adult content websites.

The ruling was made in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Judge David G. Trager. Paycom was represented by Lloyd Constantine's firm, which also represented the merchants in the class action relating to debit.

The plaintiff, Paycom Billing Services, Inc. is an aggregator of sales for Internet businesses. Paycom contracts with Internet merchants, most of which, according the court's ruling, provide online digital adult content. Paycom's primary challenge was to MasterCard's chargeback system protecting against fraudulent purchases.

The court's ruling recognized that Paycom is free to stop accepting MasterCard on behalf of its clients, or to urge its clients' customers to pay with other payment cards. The judge ruled that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that MasterCard's policies harmed competition.

"We are pleased that Judge Trager recognized that antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, not individual competitors," Simon said.

The plaintiff brought other antitrust claims, which the court dismissed, against additional MasterCard policies: its Competitive Programs Policy (CPP), Cross-Border Acquiring Rules, and Internet Merchant Qualification Mandates. The court ruled that Paycom had no standing to bring antitrust claims relating to any of these policies.

Specifically regarding the CPP claim, Judge Trager ruled that in addition to the lack of standing on its antitrust theory, plaintiffs' damages are "highly speculative" because in order to determine plaintiff's damages, a court would first have to determine, for example, how many additional fraudulent transactions on any other payment network would have occurred if the CPP did not exist. This would amount to pure speculation.

We agree with the court's decision that determining any damages under this theory would be hopelessly speculative," said Simon.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/g...770&newsLang=en