Russian users sue Apple for pulling Apple Pay over invasion of Ukraine

A Russian law firm on Friday said it had filed a lawsuit against Apple seeking 90 million roubles ($1.28 million) in damages for users affected by Apple withdrawing its Apple Pay payment service from Russia over the country’s invasion of Ukraine starting in February 2022.

Apple Pay no longer available in Russia after sanctions

Reuters:

Law firm Chernyshov, Lukoyanov & Partners said Apple had violated Russian consumers’ rights after the company restricted the use of its built-in Apple Pay service on March 1 in response to Moscow sending troops into Ukraine.

The lawsuit, which it said had been filed with a Moscow court, is seeking 90 million roubles in damages, which it said included compensation for “moral damage” caused to citizens.

It also wants Apple to resume operation of Apple Pay services for Russian users. The same law firm is pursuing a similar lawsuit against streaming company Netflix, which in March suspended its service in Russia.

MacDailyNews Take: Oh, not from Apple, but Russia certainly has suffered moral damage, alright.

Self-inflicted.

Enjoy hell, Putin.

Good luck trying to collect one red cent from Apple after whatever sham trial Russia concludes.

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

Shop The Apple Store at Amazon.

12 Comments

      1. Says someone from the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on an unarmed population. Too bad the Ukrainians got suckered in the Budapest memorandum of 1994. Bad advice is trusting anything these sooper pooper powers say, like a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq, or Jewish nazis in Ukraine.
        What’s even worse is the lack of a sense of humour, really now, you think I was giving advice to the Russians instead of making a joke.
        I’d rather be giving bad advice than being a citizen of a terrorist sooper pooper nation.

        1. “Says someone from the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on an unarmed population”

          Was it a tragedy to have dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Perhaps? Was it the right call to make? 100% without question.

          1. Many disagree. For example, read the postwar writings of many of the scientists who worked the Manhattan project. They regretted their role in unleashing what is by definition an indiscriminate extermination tool. You simply cannot claim to care for human life and then use a weapon that you know will incinerate tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and condemn tens of thousands more to long painful deaths from radiation poisoning. Of course conventional bombs are also indiscriminate but while civilians could hide in bunkers during air raids, it was well known what an atomic bomb would do to civilians. There was no escape for the Japanese victims.

            Those who claim it would have saved American lives base their argument on the ridiculous Army claim that to end the war would have required hundreds of thousands of troops to make land invasions before the Emperor of Japan would surrender. Hogwash. First, land invasion wasn’t a prerequisite to brokered peace. Second, basing potential US casualty estimates on prior major battles like Okinawa, when Japan still had a formidable military, led to dramatically overstated risks by a military command that obviously wanted to test drive their newest war toys as soon as possible. The US Navy had already mopped up the formerly impressive Japan Navy. Months of conventional bombing, largely unopposed as Japan’s air power was also on its last legs, had already broken the back of Japan, its munitions and fuel supplies in flames. In short, Truman and most Americans didn’t place any value in Japanese lives, and were unwilling to expend any more US troops to any major battle. Those assumptions in place, the math became easy.

            Truman expended a grand total of 11 days between his demand for unconditional surrender and the dropping of Little Boy. The Potsdam declaration was less a diplomatic proposal for peace than a threat of annihilation. Truman, thought by many to be weak, knew that he could bolster his political power by ending the war in one stroke rather than doing the hard work of diplomacy and final conventional military mop-up.

            Following the formal surrender, GIs led by MacArthur flooded Japan and discovered that what was left of the undernourished population had little but sticks and rakes to oppose any US land invasion, which most likely would never have been required anyway. The peacekeeping troops faced no kamikaze attacks or revolts. The people were obedient to a fault to their emperor, not a nation entirely composed of bloodthirsty warmongers. One conventional bomb delivered to the imperial palace could have accomplished a faster end to the war.

            Truman, just as much as he wanted to end the war with minimal US lives at stake, wanted to send a signal to Stalin and to US voters that he had a big stick. Of course it was naive to think that the USA alone could have that power for long. Since the late 1940’s then the world has had to live in reality that a madman like Putin with nuclear weapons can now exterminate millions of innocents with the push of a button. This is why supporting the UN and NATO and other peacekeeping associations is vital, despite many people in the USA whining about the costs. The costs of successful diplomacy are almost always less than the costs of war, especially in the modern era.

          2. Amazing that you question whether or not those atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were tragic. There were other calls that could have been made, other options, options that were suggested by the leader of atomic research at the time (Oppenheimer) that were ignored by the politicians. Thank you steve88 for pointing out some of the details.

          3. Fake news. Surrender decision had been made over two weeks earlier.
            US correctly anticipated/surmised that China wanted to fill vacuum.
            Atomic blasts were really meant as a deterrent to THAT.

            1. You have your timing wrong. China was an ally of the US until 1949. After 4 years of unsuccessful begging the US for the same rebuilding loans that Europe and Japan got, Mao Zedung turned to Russia, which of course was happy to provide a $300 million loan and mutual defense agreement. Another example of the Truman administration’s poor diplomacy record in addition to Steve’s excellent details above.

            2. @ bringing knowledge: you are mistaken about “fact”. You can state your hypothesis, and we can all agree it makes sense, but you cannot prove it as fact. Other hypotheses exist. More persuasive diplomacy from Truman could have ended the war sooner. Precision bombing or assassination of the emperor might have ended the war sooner. We will never know.

              You should know that you cannot prove that your interpretation of past events cannot be tested against alternate outcomes and proven to be facts. We can only report accurately events that happened, and hypothesize what might have been.

  1. Not saying anything about the war, but the fact that Apple can do this really goes to show how much power they have as a gatekeeper, and why there needs to be more action like the EU is taking with the digital markets act.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.