Apple Sued Over Alleged Theft Behind Apple Pay
By a news desk — Published: August 8, 2025
A Texas-based company has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Apple of using stolen technology and former employees to develop Apple Pay, the smartphone wallet that today runs on hundreds of millions of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches and Macs. The plaintiff, Fintiv, says the core features of Apple Pay were based on technology created by CorFire, a payments firm Fintiv acquired in 2014. The complaint, lodged in federal court in Atlanta, seeks damages and other relief under federal and Georgia trade-secret laws.
What the complaint alleges
According to the filed papers, Apple engaged with CorFire around 2011–2012 under non-disclosure agreements that were purportedly intended to allow licensing discussions for contactless payment technology. Fintiv alleges that, instead of licensing, Apple recruited CorFire staff and adopted the startup’s confidential designs and processes to build Apple Pay — then launched the service beginning in 2014 without compensating CorFire/Fintiv.
The suit further contends that Apple’s rollout of Apple Pay created a lucrative new revenue stream — through interchange routing, tokenization services and partnerships with banks and card networks — that benefited Apple financially while harming CorFire’s commercial prospects.
Technical context — what might be at stake
The technologies at issue fall in the space of contactless payments and secure credential handling: near-field communication (NFC), secure elements (hardware or token vaults), tokenization schemes that substitute card numbers with cryptographic tokens, and backend systems for enrollment and fraud protection. A trade-secret claim typically requires proof that the information was secret, had economic value because it was secret, and was misappropriated by improper means.
If a court found that Apple had used confidential CorFire methods without permission, the remedies could include damages, disgorgement of profits tied to the misused technology, or injunctive relief. That said, payment architectures are complex and often blend widely known cryptographic standards with proprietary implementation details — which makes the legal line between protected trade secret and routine industry practice a central battleground.
Legal posture and recent procedural history
The new complaint follows earlier legal maneuvers. In a related matter filed in Austin, a federal judge recently dismissed portions of a Fintiv claim against Apple, a decision Fintiv said it planned to appeal. The Atlanta filing renews allegations under federal trade-secret law and state statutes, and asks the court for compensatory and possibly punitive relief.
At the time this article was prepared, Apple had not issued a public statement in response to the Atlanta complaint. Apple has historically defended its products vigorously in court and frequently challenges claims it regards as without merit.
Why some claims are harder to win
Trade-secret litigation in the technology and payments sectors can be difficult for plaintiffs for several reasons:
- Burden of secrecy: Plaintiffs must show that they took reasonable measures to keep the information confidential.
- Independent development: Defendants can defend on grounds they developed similar systems independently or relied on publicly known standards.
- Functional overlap: Payment systems often implement interoperable standards (EMV, tokenization APIs) that multiple companies use, blurring ownership lines.
Potential business and market implications
Beyond courtroom outcomes, the dispute highlights how valuable digital-wallet and payments technology has become. Apple Pay is tightly integrated into Apple’s ecosystem and supports relationships with major issuing banks and card networks (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and others). A judgment finding misappropriation might prompt renegotiations of licensing practices or trigger settlements, but it could also spur competitors and startups to double down on independent innovations to avoid similar disputes.
For banks and issuers, litigation uncertainty could influence commercial terms and tech partnerships; for consumers, the day-to-day experience is unlikely to change immediately unless courts order structural remedies.
What to watch next
The key developments to follow include pretrial discovery — where internal documents and deposition testimony can reveal the true sequence of events — and any rulings on whether Fintiv has stated viable trade-secret claims. Discovery may also expose the extent to which CorFire technologies were unique versus reflective of industry best practices. Appeals and settlement discussions are common in high-stakes tech disputes, so observers should expect legal maneuvering even if the case does not reach a final trial.
Bottom line
The lawsuit frames Apple Pay not just as a convenience for consumers but as a commercially valuable innovation whose origins are now disputed. Whether Fintiv can prove that Apple misappropriated CorFire’s secrets remains an open question, one that will be shaped by detailed technical evidence and legal argument. The case is a reminder that in the fast-moving world of fintech, the line between partnership, recruitment and misappropriation can be sharply contested in court.