Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the complaint goes beyond intellectual property theft as Fintiv claims that Apple engaged in corporate racketeering, deliberately lifting confidential innovations from CorFire, a mobile wallet solutions provider Fintiv acquired in 2014. 

According to the lawsuit, Apple breached nondisclosure agreements and also recruited CorFire staff to facilitate the development of Apple Pay, which was launched globally in 2014.

The issue dates back to 2011 and 2012, when Apple allegedly held a series of meetings with CorFire and entered into non-disclosure agreements to explore licensing discussions. 

Rather than formalise a deal, Apple is accused of using those sessions to extract technical knowledge and later build its own product without compensation or credit.

“This is a case of corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions,” the suit reads. “Apple has generated billions of dollars in revenue without paying Fintiv a single penny.”

Fintiv’s legal team, led by veteran lawyer Marc Kasowitz, isn’t pulling any punches. In a statement accompanying the filing, Kasowitz declared: “This is one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance I’ve seen in 45 years of legal practice.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of both federal and state-level statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Georgia’s state equivalent of the RICO statute, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and Georgia’s Trade Secret Act. Apple stands as the sole defendant in the case.

A key element of Fintiv’s argument is that Apple formed what it calls an “association-in-fact enterprise” with top-tier banks and credit card companies, including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, to profit off the stolen technology. 

Fintiv insists these institutions have benefitted from Apple Pay transaction fees while being part of an informal commercial ecosystem rooted in misappropriated technology.

CorFire, originally based in Alpharetta, Georgia, developed mobile wallet infrastructure long before Apple’s first foray into the space. The lawsuit asserts that the similarities between CorFire’s proprietary solutions and the structure of Apple Pay are not coincidental, but the result of intentional reverse engineering of CorFire’s work.

Again, this new filing follows a separate legal setback for Fintiv. On August 4, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed a related patent infringement case Fintiv had filed against Apple. Fintiv has indicated plans to appeal that decision but appears to be moving its focus to the Georgia court, where CorFire’s legacy and intellectual property were originally based.

While Apple has yet to issue a public response, the case is already drawing attention due to its potential financial and reputational implications. Apple Pay remains a central component of the company’s services division, which has become a major revenue stream.

The lawsuit is registered as Fintiv Inc v Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, No. 25-04413.

This case points to a more serious legal confrontation over how tech giants interact with smaller firms, especially in early-stage collaborations that never formalise into partnerships. 

Fintiv says Apple has followed this same pattern in other disputes, pointing to ongoing claims involving Masimo and Valencell, whose health-tracking technologies allegedly influenced the development of the Apple Watch.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the duo conspired to break into an Apple development iPhone and leak trade secrets from what was then known as iOS 19, now iOS 26.

Apple claims Jon Prosser, known for his YouTube channel Front Page Tech, exploited Ramacciotti’s personal ties to Ethan Lipnik, an Apple engineer, to infiltrate a confidential development device. 

According to Apple, Prosser offered Ramacciotti money or potential job prospects in exchange for access to the unreleased software. Armed with Lipnik’s passcode and location data, Ramacciotti allegedly waited for the right moment, broke into Lipnik’s development iPhone, and broadcast its confidential contents to Prosser via a video call.

In a piece of evidence, Apple reveals an audio message from Ramacciotti to Lipnik, admitting the breach and attributing the plan to Prosser. The recording, Apple says, “detailed the compensation proposed by Mr. Prosser and their plan to acquire Apple information.”

Lipnik, whose failure to report the incident promptly violated company protocols, has since been dismissed.

Prosser’s use of the stolen data went far beyond simple curiosity. Apple asserts that he recorded the screen-share session, created detailed renders of unreleased iOS features, and posted them across his YouTube channels.

These leaks included early looks at Apple’s revamped camera, messaging apps, and the new Liquid Glass design interface. 

Prosser himself was quoted in one of his videos acknowledging the depth of Apple’s internal security measures: “Apple does a lot of clever hiding. Let’s say you’re an Apple engineer: some elements of the OS are forked off into separate teams to prevent a full build from being in your possession, which is also why we never really see iOS leak early.”

While Prosser objects to Apple’s version of events, insisting publicly that “I did not ‘plot’ to access anyone’s phone. I did not have any passwords. I was unaware of how the information was obtained,” Apple is not convinced. 

The tech giant is now seeking damages and a court order to stop Prosser from sharing any more of its confidential materials.

Apple stresses that the development iPhone accessed contained more, beyond just the features Prosser leaked. The company warns that “other unannounced design elements” are at risk, potentially compromising future products.

Ultimately, Apple’s lawsuit portrays Prosser and Ramacciotti as calculated actors who knowingly targeted its trade secrets, bypassed security protocols, and monetised confidential information.

“Defendants’ misconduct was brazen and egregious,” Apple states in its filing, adding that Prosser “profited off Apple’s trade secrets by, at least, sharing them in multiple videos on his business’s YouTube channel, from which he generates ad revenue.”

The company argues that the fine and the obligations tied to it go far beyond what the law actually requires.

The issue traces back to the European Commission’s April ruling, which found Apple guilty of restricting app developers from directing users to cheaper alternatives outside the App Store.

According to the Commission, Apple’s actions violated the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a law designed to curb the dominance of major tech companies.

On Monday, the final day allowed for a legal challenge, the iPhone maker submitted its appeal. In a statement, Apple said:

“Today we filed our appeal because we believe the European Commission’s decision—and their unprecedented fine—go far beyond what the law requires. As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users. We implemented this to avoid punitive daily fines and will share the facts with the Court.”

The company believes the European Commission is now telling it how to manage its own business in ways that damage the developer community and worsen user experience.

In June, Apple tried to revise its App Store policies across the European Union to comply with the DMA and avoid further daily fines, which could have reached as high as €50 million per day, about 5% of Apple’s average daily global turnover.

The changes Apple introduced, however, have triggered new controversy. The company unveiled a complex, tiered commission system: developers now face either a 5% or 13% fee, plus a separate 2% user acquisition charge if they want better visibility in the App Store, such as appearing in search suggestions or getting promotional spots. Apple insists these adjustments were forced by the Commission’s demands.

The company is also now allowing developers to steer users to payment options outside the App Store, but Apple claims the Commission’s definition of “steering” was unlawfully expanded, covering more developer activities than it should.

While Apple argues that no other app store in the world operates under such conditions, the European Commission is pressing ahead. It is currently gathering feedback from developers to assess whether Apple’s latest changes are sufficient or if more corrective measures will be needed.

Over the years, the European Commission has issued fines against several tech giants, including Alphabet’s Google, which has accumulated more than $8 billion in penalties. Apple itself was previously ordered to pay Ireland €13 billion in back taxes.

Apple’s latest appeal adds yet another chapter to its long-running legal battles over the control and structure of its App Store, not just in Europe, but globally. In the United States, Apple has already been forced to allow developers to direct users to external payment options, potentially threatening billions in annual revenue.

The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, follows years of court cases between Apple and Epic Games, the creators of Fortnite, over Apple’s grip on app distribution and in-app payment systems.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated that Apple ignored her 2021 injunction, which required the tech giant to allow app developers to direct users to alternative payment options outside Apple’s closed ecosystem.

Not only did Apple resist, it allegedly imposed new obstacles—like a 27% commission on off-app purchases—and deployed user warnings to deter alternative payment methods.

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order,” the judge wrote.

Gonzalez Rogers has now referred Apple and its Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, to the U.S. Department of Justice for possible criminal contempt proceedings. According to the judge, Roman’s testimony was “replete with misdirection and outright lies” about Apple’s compliance measures.

Internal court filings and documents also revealed that Apple CEO Tim Cook dismissed internal legal counsel urging the company to follow the injunction more faithfully.

From my point of view, this isn’t a story about fees or app design, but a challenge to the very core of Apple’s business model. 

For years, the company has insisted that its tight control over the App Store is essential for user safety and experience. But this ruling punches a hole in that history, revealing what appears to be a strategy built on minimising competition while maximising control.

Epic Games CEO, Tim Sweeney called the ruling “a significant win for developers and consumers.” Speaking to reporters, he added: “It forces Apple to compete with other payment services rather than blocking them, and this is what we wanted all along.”

Sweeney also said Epic plans to relaunch Fortnite on Apple’s platform as early as next week, following the game’s removal in 2020 for bypassing Apple’s payment system.

On the implications, Apple is now barred from applying its new 27% external transaction fee and from limiting how developers communicate with users about payment options.

The company, however, said: “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”

Judge Gonzalez Rogers said that’s no longer up to her. “It will be for the executive branch to decide whether Apple should be deprived of the fruits of its violation, in addition to any penalty geared to deter future misconduct,” she wrote.

The lawsuit, led by Rachel Kent, a lecturer at King’s College London, claims Apple has exploited its control over the distribution of apps and in-app purchases to make excessive profits. The case, filed under Britain’s developing collective lawsuit system, is the first major trial of its kind targeting a tech giant in the country.

Kent’s legal team argues that Apple operates a monopoly by restricting app distribution exclusively to its App Store, leaving developers with no alternatives. They allege that the high commissions charged by Apple result in inflated costs for consumers. Mark Hoskins, representing Kent, stated in court filings that Apple holds “a 100% monopoly position” and enforces restrictive terms that limit competition.

Apple has rejected the accusations, labelling the case baseless. The company says that most app developers either pay no commission or benefit from reduced rates. 

Apple’s legal representative, Marie Demetriou, contends that the fees reflect the value provided by Apple’s iOS ecosystem, which she described as highly secure and innovative. She criticised the lawsuit for overlooking Apple’s intellectual property rights, framing the demand to open its space as “an unjust expropriation.”

This trial is expected to run for seven weeks and will include testimony from Apple’s Chief Financial Officer, Kevan Parekh. 

Meanwhile, Apple is also dealing with separate legal challenges in the UK, including a £785 million claim led by Professor Sean Ennis on behalf of app developers. 

This case accuses Apple of overcharging developers and will test the company across international storefronts.

The settlement, filed in a federal court in Oakland, California, is still subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

The lawsuit, which dates back several years, accused Apple of allowing Siri to unintentionally activate and record private conversations when users did not deliberately trigger the assistant. 

Plaintiffs claimed these recordings were sometimes shared with third parties, including advertisers. Apple has denied any wrongdoing but has chosen to settle the case.

Users alleged that Siri’s “Hey, Siri” feature, introduced in September 2014, often activated accidentally, capturing personal conversations. In some instances, this reportedly led to targeted advertisements. 

For example, two plaintiffs said discussions about products like Air Jordan sneakers and Olive Garden restaurants prompted ads for those items, raising issues about data privacy.

The class action lawsuit covers a period from 2014 to the end of 2024 and involves tens of millions of potential claimants. Eligible Apple device owners could receive up to $20 per Siri-enabled device, including iPhones and Apple Watches. Claims are capped at five devices per individual.

As part of the agreement, Apple will delete any unauthorised Siri recordings made before October 2019 within six months of the settlement’s effective date. The company will also update its user guidance on Siri’s data collection practices to provide clearer information.

The plaintiffs’ legal team is expected to request up to $28.5 million in legal fees and an additional $1.1 million for expenses from the settlement fund.

Beyond Apple, Google is also facing a similar lawsuit involving its voice assistant, which is being handled in the same federal district.

Apple has not issued any public statements about the settlement. The lawsuit, Lopez et al v. Apple Inc., reveals the growing demand for transparency and accountability in how tech companies handle consumer data.