| Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice. The article mentions it is in the UK. Relevant fraud statute appears to be this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2 It looks like all the criteria for it to be fraud are met. However, it also looks like legislation in the UK disallows (and renders void) concerted practices which may affect trade within the United Kingdom, and have as their effect the distortion of competition within the United Kingdom, applying, in particular to practices which apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/2 A concerted practice of charging the owners of well-known brands of smartphones less than the owners of less-known brands for an equivalent transaction would have the effect of lessening competition, because people might eschew a lesser known smartphone (increasing the barriers of entry to the smartphone market in the UK). So there appears to be a good defence that price discrimination practices like this are illegal and void, and therefore circumventing it is not fraudulent. Of course, out of an abundance of caution, I don't think it would be wise to volunteer to be a test case for this. |