Apple iPhone with Apple Pay logo on the keyboard. Credit: Primakov/Shutterstock Apple Sued Over Apple Pay, Accused of Antitrust Violations
Apple is accused of using its market power to fend off competition from rival payment apps and charging card issuers fees to boost its bottom line.
July 19, 2022 at 02:53 PM
3 minute read
Apple Inc. was hit with an antitrust lawsuit over Apple Pay, accused of using its market power in the mobile device industry to fend off competition from rival payment apps and charging card issuers fees to boost its bottom line.
The proposed class-action complaint by Affinity Credit Union marks the latest antitrust battle for the iPhone maker, after facing increased scrutiny in recent years over its App Store policies from government regulators. European regulators, after a nearly two-year investigation, also found on a preliminary basis that Apple abused its dominant position with Apple Pay in the market for tap-to-pay apps or mobile wallets.
IPhone users must use Apple Pay if they want to buy something by tapping the phone against a terminal in a store. Other iPhone payment services such as PayPal and Square, as well as financial institutions such as Chase, Citi and American Express, can't launch tap-to-pay iPhone apps with their own features and interface.
By excluding competition, Apple can charge "payment card issuers fees that no other mobile wallet ventures to impose," Affinity Credit Union, the Des Moines, Iowa-based payment card credit union that issues payment cards, said in the lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in San Jose, California.
Apple charges issuers 0.15% on credit card transactions and 0.05% on debit cards. Google Pay and Samsung Pay, operating on the Android system, don't charge card issuers any fees. The Apple Pay fees "generated a reported $1 billion for Apple in 2019, and this revenue stream — earned from card issuers — is predicted to quadruple by 2023," Affinity Credit Union said in the lawsuit.
"If Apple faced competition, it could not sustain these substantial fees," Affinity Credit Union said.
The credit union claims Apple is violating the Sherman Act, designed to protect competition, by tying its mobile devices and mobile wallet together and by exclusing all competitors.
Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
But in discussing the European Union's probe of Apple's mobile payment policies in May, the region's Digital Chief Margrethe Vestager said Apple claimed it can't provide access to NFC for security reasons.
"Our investigation to date did not reveal any evidence that would point to such a higher security risk," Vestager said, according to prepared remarks posted on the EU's website. "On the contrary, evidence on our file indicates that Apple's conduct cannot be justified by security concerns."
Affinity Credit Union is represented in the California lawsuit by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a frequent class action lawsuit opponent of Apple. The law firm helped plaintiffs reach a $400 million settlement in 2016 over eBooks price fixing, a $100 million deal in 2021 for small App Store developers, and a $95 million settlement this year over product warranties.
The suit is Affinity Credit Union v. Apple, 3:22-cv-04174, in the Northern District of California (San Jose).
Malathi Nayak reports for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Trump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
3 minute read
US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute read
Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
