Your article was successfully posted to your social media. Want to share more? Go ahead!
Image: Shutterstock
While Apple basked in Apple Pay’s billion‑dollar success, Fintiv – owner of the stolen mobile wallet technology – claims it never got paid.
Apple is facing a sweeping lawsuit in the United States that accuses it of stealing the technology behind Apple Pay from a fintech partner more than a decade ago.
Filed on 6 August in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, the case — Fintiv Inc v Apple Inc — alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Georgia’s RICO Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Georgia Trade Secrets Act.
Fintiv, represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, is demanding a jury trial.
According to the 72-page complaint, Apple approached CorFire – a mobile commerce company later acquired by Fintiv – in 2011 and 2012 under the pretext of forming a mobile payments partnership.
Six in-person meetings took place, the filing states, all covered by non-disclosure agreements and involving technical presentations on CorFire’s secure element, NFC mobile wallet, and trusted service management (TSM) technology.
Fintiv alleges that Apple never intended to license the technology. Instead, the suit claims, Apple incorporated key elements into Apple Pay, which launched in October 2014, and hired former CorFire and SK C&C employees with inside knowledge of the systems.
The “Apple Pay Payment Enterprise”
The complaint frames Apple Pay as the core of a broader “enterprise” – described as an association-in-fact between Apple, major credit card issuers such as JP Morgan Chase and Citibank, and payment networks including Visa and Mastercard.
Fintiv claims this network processes billions of transactions worth trillions of dollars annually, generating “tens of billions” in fees for its members. “Apple Pay is the engine that drives the RICO Enterprise,” the filing states, alleging that without the benefit of Fintiv’s stolen mobile wallet technology, Apple’s ability to monetise Apple Pay “would be severely compromised.”
The suit also cites what it calls a “pattern and practice” by Apple of securing access to proprietary technology under false pretences. As examples, it references disputes with Masimo Corp., over blood oxygen monitoring technology for the Apple Watch, and Valencell Inc., over active heart-monitoring technology – both of which Apple allegedly integrated without licensing.
The financial scale
Jennifer Bailey, VP Internet Services, Apple Pay
Fintiv argues that Apple Pay has been a major driver of Apple’s growth, helping lift its market capitalisation from around $296 billion in 2010 to over $3 trillion today, and boosting annual revenue from $199.8 billion in 2014 to $391 billion in 2024.
Despite this, the complaint states, Apple “has not paid a single penny to Fintiv.”
The filing points to comments by Jennifer Bailey, Apple’s Vice President of Apple Pay and Wallet, made in October 2024 marking Apple Pay’s 10th anniversary, as evidence of a false narrative.
In a press release and podcast interview, Bailey said Apple “envisioned” Apple Pay and leveraged its own “hardware and software” to create it — statements Fintiv claims were designed to conceal the product’s true origins.
Fintiv’s position
In its 7 August press release, Fintiv described the case as “one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance” its lead counsel Marc Kasowitz has seen in 45 years of practice.
The Austin-based firm positions itself as a global leader in patented, white-labelled Web2-to-Web3 payment and tokenisation solutions, managing over 150 patents and deploying more than 100 digital ecosystems in 35 countries.
The case has yet to be assigned to a judge. If it proceeds, discovery could compel Apple to produce NDA records, internal communications, and contracts with payment partners.
A ruling in Fintiv’s favour could reshape how fintechs approach intellectual property protection when engaging with dominant technology platforms. For Apple, the suit challenges not only the origin story of Apple Pay, but also the partnerships and revenue streams it has built around the service over the past decade.
Did Apple secretly steal the tech behind Apple Pay?
You’ve shared it!
While Apple basked in Apple Pay’s billion‑dollar success, Fintiv – owner of the stolen mobile wallet technology – claims it never got paid.
Apple is facing a sweeping lawsuit in the United States that accuses it of stealing the technology behind Apple Pay from a fintech partner more than a decade ago.
Filed on 6 August in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, the case — Fintiv Inc v Apple Inc — alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Georgia’s RICO Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Georgia Trade Secrets Act.
Fintiv, represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, is demanding a jury trial.
According to the 72-page complaint, Apple approached CorFire – a mobile commerce company later acquired by Fintiv – in 2011 and 2012 under the pretext of forming a mobile payments partnership.
Six in-person meetings took place, the filing states, all covered by non-disclosure agreements and involving technical presentations on CorFire’s secure element, NFC mobile wallet, and trusted service management (TSM) technology.
Fintiv alleges that Apple never intended to license the technology. Instead, the suit claims, Apple incorporated key elements into Apple Pay, which launched in October 2014, and hired former CorFire and SK C&C employees with inside knowledge of the systems.
The “Apple Pay Payment Enterprise”
The complaint frames Apple Pay as the core of a broader “enterprise” – described as an association-in-fact between Apple, major credit card issuers such as JP Morgan Chase and Citibank, and payment networks including Visa and Mastercard.
Fintiv claims this network processes billions of transactions worth trillions of dollars annually, generating “tens of billions” in fees for its members. “Apple Pay is the engine that drives the RICO Enterprise,” the filing states, alleging that without the benefit of Fintiv’s stolen mobile wallet technology, Apple’s ability to monetise Apple Pay “would be severely compromised.”
The suit also cites what it calls a “pattern and practice” by Apple of securing access to proprietary technology under false pretences. As examples, it references disputes with Masimo Corp., over blood oxygen monitoring technology for the Apple Watch, and Valencell Inc., over active heart-monitoring technology – both of which Apple allegedly integrated without licensing.
The financial scale
Fintiv argues that Apple Pay has been a major driver of Apple’s growth, helping lift its market capitalisation from around $296 billion in 2010 to over $3 trillion today, and boosting annual revenue from $199.8 billion in 2014 to $391 billion in 2024.
Despite this, the complaint states, Apple “has not paid a single penny to Fintiv.”
The filing points to comments by Jennifer Bailey, Apple’s Vice President of Apple Pay and Wallet, made in October 2024 marking Apple Pay’s 10th anniversary, as evidence of a false narrative.
In a press release and podcast interview, Bailey said Apple “envisioned” Apple Pay and leveraged its own “hardware and software” to create it — statements Fintiv claims were designed to conceal the product’s true origins.
Fintiv’s position
In its 7 August press release, Fintiv described the case as “one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance” its lead counsel Marc Kasowitz has seen in 45 years of practice.
The Austin-based firm positions itself as a global leader in patented, white-labelled Web2-to-Web3 payment and tokenisation solutions, managing over 150 patents and deploying more than 100 digital ecosystems in 35 countries.
The case has yet to be assigned to a judge. If it proceeds, discovery could compel Apple to produce NDA records, internal communications, and contracts with payment partners.
A ruling in Fintiv’s favour could reshape how fintechs approach intellectual property protection when engaging with dominant technology platforms. For Apple, the suit challenges not only the origin story of Apple Pay, but also the partnerships and revenue streams it has built around the service over the past decade.