Apple sued for Alleged Trade Secret Theft in Apple Pay‘s Development, Echoing Pattern of conduct
Atlanta, GA – august 8, 2025 – Fintiv, a financial technology company, has filed a sweeping lawsuit against Apple, alleging the tech giant stole its secure payment technology to launch Apple Pay in 2014. The suit, filed in Georgia, invokes both federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act statutes, claiming a deliberate pattern of intellectual property theft. This legal action adds to growing scrutiny surrounding Apple’s business practices and its dominance in the mobile payments landscape.
The complaint details accusations that Apple systematically targeted Fintiv, specifically focusing on acquiring its expertise in secure element design, Near Field Communication (NFC) implementation, and trusted service management. Fintiv alleges Apple didn’t seek legitimate partnership, but instead orchestrated a scheme to poach key personnel from CorFire, a company Fintiv had acquired, and then leverage that stolen no-how to build Apple Pay. The lawsuit claims apple Pay’s core architecture is a “carbon copy” of Fintiv’s proprietary technology, fueling its multi-billion dollar revenue stream.
The Broader Context: The Rise of Mobile Payments & IP Disputes
The launch of Apple Pay in 2014 marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of mobile payments. Prior to its arrival, mobile payment options were fragmented and lacked widespread adoption. apple’s entry, leveraging the iPhone’s existing user base and a focus on security and convenience, quickly established Apple Pay as a leading force. The technology underpinning these systems – secure elements, NFC, and robust security protocols – are complex and require significant investment in research and development. This complexity makes intellectual property protection paramount, and consequently, disputes over ownership and usage are increasingly common.
Fintiv’s lawsuit isn’t an isolated incident. The complaint draws parallels to similar allegations leveled against Apple in disputes with health technology firms Masimo Corp. and Valencell Inc. In the case of Masimo, Apple is accused of stealing non-invasive blood oxygen monitoring technology crucial for improving the Apple Watch’s functionality. Similarly, with Valencell, the suit alleges Apple feigned interest in licensing active heart-monitoring technology only to allegedly steal it for its own products. These cases, according to Fintiv, demonstrate a consistent “partner, poach and profit” strategy employed by Apple.The complaint further alleges Apple created a “fence” – an “association-in-fact enterprise” – involving issuing banks and card networks to process the trillions of dollars in Apple Pay transactions, effectively monetizing Fintiv’s allegedly stolen trade secrets on a massive scale.
Key Details Not Included in the Original Article:
corfire Acquisition: The article mentions CorFire personnel being targeted, but doesn’t explicitly state Fintiv acquired CorFire, highlighting the direct line of intellectual property transfer.
Specific Allegations Regarding CorFire Employees: While the article states key personnel were hired, it doesn’t detail how they were allegedly recruited or what specific knowledge they possessed.
Georgia Venue: The lawsuit was filed in Georgia, wich is significant as it potentially allows Fintiv to leverage Georgia’s RICO statute, known for its strong penalties.
Dismissed Patent Suit: The article briefly mentions a dismissed patent infringement suit, but doesn’t detail the specifics of that claim or why it was dismissed. (Reuters reports the dismissal was due to a judge finding Fintiv failed to demonstrate apple infringed on its patents.)
Potential Impact on Apple Pay “Tax” Debate: The article alludes to scrutiny of Apple Pay’s fees charged to issuers and networks, but doesn’t elaborate on the nature of this debate. (Industry observers argue Apple extracts a significant percentage of each transaction, effectively acting as a toll collector.)
Apple has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit, consistent with its typical practice of declining comment on pending litigation. however, a motion to dismiss is anticipated. While Apple shares showed minimal reaction to the news on thursday, closing up 0.4%, the lawsuit could reignite debate about Apple Pay’s business model and the potential for anti-competitive practices within the mobile payments industry.
Resources:
Fintiv’s court filing: https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Fintiv-Apple-lawsuit-080625.pdf
* RICO Act Statute: [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rico-racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations-act-statute](