sue Visa, Mastercard, and a Danish card servicer for the 'financial blockade' that was placed on their donors.
The contention is that this was a US influenced/financed endeavor and that the action violated the Fair Competition Laws in the EU.
Here is my question. If the US pressured/forced/sodomoized these corporations into doing this, what then is the obligation on the government for defending them in civil or criminal court? Furthermore, how, if at all, should Visa and Mastercard be compensated if this leads to a fine from the EU? I only ask because it seems logical that the government pushed these companies into doing this and now they are having to pay for the repercussions.
Thoughts?
Edit: Relevant:
F*** you guys
Good question. I'm posting because I want to follow this and as far as I remember there is precedent similar to this that we looked at back at Oxford. Let me dig it out somewhere!
I wonder if it could fall under collusion etc. or market manipulation?
I think a private enterprise should be able to not do business with someone else if they see fit. If they deem wikileaks' behavior to be unsavory, than they should be able not to do business with them. Another aspect of this case was that Mastercard, Visa and Paypal have essentially stolen money from Wikileaks by freezing their accounts.
They should let them have their money as long as they are not frozen under some court order. And I agree that people should be free to choose who they do business with.
I would agree. You might get them on collusion. How is OPEC not collusion BTW??? I digress...
A vendor can and should be able to freeze or limit an account under the auspices of maintaining its own best interest, as a precaution to limit loss due to a customer's actions. Banks do this all the time to protect themselves from fraud or even the appearance of fraud. I don't see a case for negligence or liability in this instance. The vendors were 'protecting' themselves even if it was at the undocumented behest of a government or one of its agencies. As long as they did not violate the terms of the processing contract then I don't see any reason they would be liable let alone considered to be stealing...
Trying to be unbiased here but not sure its working. I'll save my Julian Assange rant for another time.
OPEC is collusion, but it isn't a US based cartel so it's outside the jurisdiction for any reprimand by the US... Right?
Voluptatem autem corrupti minus et natus quia. Voluptatem aut illum dolor ea. Vel eos vitae dolorem ex.
Et cumque voluptatem non earum excepturi nemo ipsam odio. Corporis provident et beatae qui ab deserunt ea. Rerum laboriosam eos qui ratione voluptas non sint. Sint eos aut non eos. Placeat accusamus perferendis molestiae.
Commodi voluptas expedita est quia. Dolorem ducimus ipsum corrupti sed molestiae consectetur. In rerum sunt quaerat error. Voluptatum quia ipsum eum reprehenderit atque id quo cupiditate.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...