ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The Financial and Security Products Association filed a motion April 19 for a preliminary injunction against North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold Inc. The injunction, filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asks that Diebold be prohibited from changing its pre-2004 ATM parts and service policies.
Specifically, the injunction speaks to Diebold's policies on ATM diagnostics and the sale of parts (including parts associated with upgrades to EPP4 keyboards).
John Vrabec, FSPA executive director, said the association couldn't be more than "pre-2004." "That's because we don't know when they changed some of their policies. They didn't notify anyone," he said.
Vrabec added that policies established during the early '90s, "to the best of our knowledge," stayed in effect until the early 2000s. Those original policies, he continued, were open service agreements that third parties were happy with.
The motion states that prior to 2004 Diebold maintained policies that permitted its customers to obtain, without restriction, ATM service from third-party maintenance companies. Diebold's ATM customers and their third-party maintenance companies had complete unconditional access to Diebold's diagnostic software - which was necessary for the effective maintenance of ATMs, the motion adds.
A key provision of FSPA's court complaint is putting hold-harmless agreements, under which third-party maintenance companies (at the discretion of the ATM owners) were allowed access to diagnostic software, back into place.
"It is important to note that we are not asking for any monetary damages with this motion," Vrabec said. "(This) is only for an injunction that the ATM parts and services business remain an open and level playing field, where the customer can choose who they wish to service their ATMs."
FSPA is asking for an injunction as soon as possible "because Diebold's new policies threaten to, and will, put FSPA's members out of the parts and service business."
FSPA is pressing for a May 26 court date.
"We hope that we can get a court date within 90 days, rather than three or four months," Vrabec said.
"The law is clear that a manufacturer's change of policy that abuses locked-in customers in an installed base market constitutes an anti-trust violation," the FSPA notice of motion and motion for preliminary injunction states. "Defendant Diebold has changed its service and parts policies in its installed base for automatic teller machines (ATMs) by preventing its customers from having those ATMs serviced by third-party maintenance companies (TPMs) on terms previously allowed. This change in policy is illegally reducing competition in these markets thereby raising prices to consumers and restricting availability of parts and services."
(Read also …FSPA seeks preliminary injunction against Diebold and FSPA moves forward with motion for preliminary injunction against Diebold.)
