Is selling a product at a different price per country discrimination (and thus illegal)? If a company sells a product globally, but wishes to set the price of that product differently per country, is that discrimination or legal? The business reason is, it is more profitable to sell to some countries but not others. So we wish to disincentivize but not exclude some countries by setting higher prices.
It is absolutely discrimination - treating one person or group differently from another person or group is the textbook definition of discrimination. Discrimination is only illegal if it is on the basis of a legally protected class. You will need to check the law of each country involved but, in general, price discrimination based on location is not illegal.
You asked about other jurisdictions. As you'll probably be aware (from cases like EU vs Microsoft and EU vs Google) European countries and culture tend to have much stronger protection laws for consumer and employee rights than the US does. In the UK you could make a strong case, although such cases are not often undertaken. The current legislation is Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but the unfair contract terms clause goes back to at least the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Basically the law protects a person in a situation where disparity of size and bargaining power have led to unfair terms in a contract (typically a large company offering "take it or leave it" standard terms) - and specifically if they create a significant disparity in the parties rights and obligations. In such a situation the company which drafted the terms alleged to be unfair must show they are reasonable. A list of common terms likely to be seen as unfair is provided. (Employment terms are covered by other laws but also aim to prevent abuses due to inequality of contracting power) A company which sold a product like Windows 7/8/8.1 and then later said "we are changing our terms of support and forcing you to upgrade" (especially to a different product the user may not want, or a product that is maintained in a different way),would almost certainly be at substantial risk of falling foul of this. It wouldn't matter if it was done by not providing the support/patches as originally implied (by custom or normal expectation) or as agreed in an explicit statement of support life cycle, or by saying "we have the right under the contract to do this", or by forcing what is essentially a change of product to get the updates. It also wouldnt matter how big they are, nor whether or not the user had already agreed "because I felt I had no choice". The law is there specifically to protect against abuses like this, so it is drafted to catch companies who try to find "wriggle room".
What are our possibilities here? You could be sued for damages in Mexico, the country of origin of the copyright or any of the other signatories of the Berne Convention. You could also be charged with a criminal offence but that is less likely. how much can we get away with? Not a legal question. What you are proposing is illegal - how likely your getaway plan is to work is not for me to say. Is there any advantage on us being on México? No Is there any advantage on picking any either Dragon Ball or League of legends because of the country they are in? No Can they stop us from doing it? Yes
I emailed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the USA asking this and received the reply: "There is nothing to prevent you from marketing antiques in the UK while present in the US." I also contacted a relevant US attorney and received: "There’s nothing in your question which would implicate Colorado or US law. If you're a UK citizen, and the sale is happening in the UK while you're in the US, then the US has anything to do with it. So as long as the UK doesn’t have any problem with it, the US will not." So I would conclude this question fairly answered.
This is an incomplete answer, but regardless of the state of statutory law in the U.K. and Ireland, most credit card providers, as part of their merchant agreements authorizing a merchant to accept credit card payments, prohibit merchants who accept credit cards from offering a lower price for cash payment than for a purchase using a credit card, despite the fact that in the case of a credit card payment, the merchant has to pay a processing fee to the credit card company that the merchant does not have to pay in a cash transaction. There have been some lawsuits challenging the validity of this requirement, but to the best of my knowledge, none have been successful. Generally speaking, however, it is not illegal to offer a different price if the merchant is paid all at once, as opposed to offering seller financing on installment terms (a different sense of the phase "cash price"), which is a different situation than when a merchant is distinguishing between a credit card payment of the entire price in one go, and a cash payment of the entire price in one go. It isn't entirely clear from your question in what sense "cash price" is customarily used with those tags. Similarly, it is probably permissible to offer one price for people who pay via either cash or a credit card on one hand, and a different price for people who pay via a check (which carries with it a risk that the check will not be honored), since that is not subject to a merchant agreement restriction, although my impression is that checks are used less often for payments in the U.K. (where they were invented) and Ireland, than in the United States.
In the US, people are generally allowed to charge arbitrary amounts for services, as long as they do not violate various anti-discrimination laws in doing for. For example it would be illegal to charge people of one race less than they charge people of another race, because of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Three primary factors govern the legality of a particular form of discrimination. One is the type of interaction, for example "voting rights", "public accommodation", "employment", "housing" – medical treatment would generally fall under "public accommodation". The second is jurisdiction – there can be federal, state, and municipal laws governing a particular kind of discrimination (the lower in the hierarchy you go, the stricter the laws tend to be). Finally there is the "protected class", that is, the basis for discrimination. Protected class is extremely variable, given the preceding two factors. Age discrimination is legal in ways that race discrimination is not. "Has insurance" is not a protected class anywhere, so this does not violate any discrimination laws (per se). There are numerous legal forms of discrimination which are analogous, for example to shop at Costco at all, you have to be a member; there are numerous businesses that offer "member discounts"; some doctors work on a "subscription" basis where they don't treat you unless you are a (paid) service subscriber. The idea that a service has to treat all comers identically is legally incorrect. Co-pay rates are dictated by insurance companies, and can vary depending on the specific insurance carrier that you have. To the extent that there are no specific laws saying otherwise, a service provider is legally entitled to charge less to a person who does not make a claims for coverage by medical insurance – or they could charge more. Indeed, the "without insurance" cost of medical services is typically higher, and the insurance company insists on doctors accepting lower compensation. A "practical" but somewhat risky solution is that if you know that the copay is higher than the street price, you can simply not reveal that you have insurance. However, sometimes an office visit results in a finding that some treatment is needed, and the street price for that treatment may be substantially higher than the insured price. At any rate, contractually-determined co-pays are legal. I should mention a remote possibility for applying anti-discrimination laws, owing to sec. 1557 of ACA. See this article on health care discrimination litigation, where the law enabled "private right of action for disparate impact claims opens the door to class-based claims challenging facially neutral health care policies, treatment decisions, and insurance coverage on the basis that they disproportionately affect members of protected classes". Under this regime, if a policy effectively discriminates on the basis of a protected class, without explicitly mentioning the class, the policy could still be found illegal. If there is a strong enough correlation between race and having health insurance, then "having health insurance" could be found to be a substitute for discrimination on prohibited grounds. There isn't enough case law on this issue, that we can clearly say that such an argument would or would not work.
If everyone hired after date X has a different contract from anyone hired before that date it is not discriminatory. (As long as they do nothing naughty like changing the contract, hiring three black people, changing the contract back).
switzerland This answer is mostly to point out that the situation isn't so obvious, and may greatly differ between jurisdictions. OR Art 7 specifies: 2 The sending of tariffs, price lists and the like does not constitute an offer. 3 By contrast, the display of merchandise with an indication of its price does generally constitute an offer. So the seller is bound to the price tag of an item in a shelf or in a window. If the prices differ, the customer can generally request the lower price, unless the seller can clearly show that there was a significant error. There's a separate law (&quot;Preisbekanntgabeverordnung&quot;) that specifies that (under most circumstances) a shop must put price tags on their items. What margin constitutes an error is disputable. The federal court ruled that an offer for an opal ring for 1380 Francs instead of 13800 could be considered an error. But a T-Shirt that is offered for 20 Francs in the shop window but 25 Francs on the shelf is probably not.