Apple faces private antitrust lawsuit

The proposed class action is led by Illinois’ Consumers Co-op Credit Union, Iowa’s Affinity Credit Union, and GreenState Credit Union. Back in July 2022, Affinity Credit Union filed an official complaint against Apple for illegally profiting from Apple Pay and breaking antitrust laws. The lawsuit claimed that Apple has restricted contactless payments on iOS devices to Apple Pay and it charged payment card issuers fees to use the mobile wallet. This resulted in Apple allegedly engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.

Currently, the plaintiffs accuse Apple of coercing individuals who operate its smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches into using its own wallet for tap-to-pay transactions. On the other hand, Android-based devices allow consumers to choose their preferred wallets, including Google Pay and Samsung Pay. As per the complaint, Apple’s conduct makes approximately 4,000 banks and credit unions that use its wallet pay at least USD 1 billion of excess fees. Moreover, plaintiffs claim that the company harms consumers by reducing the incentive to make its product safer and easier to use.

The company did not immediately respond to the requests for comment on the matter. However, seeking dismissal, Apple stated that it charged nominal fees to smaller card issuers. Also, the company said that the plaintiffs ignored the competitive reality that consumers could still pay with cash, physical credit and debit cards, and other payment methods. 

Back in May 2023, EU antitrust regulators requested  more information on Apple’s mobile payment system, aiming to boost its previous case against the company. In 2022, EU regulators charged  Apple with restricting competitors’ access to its technology used for mobile wallets. The European Commission stated that Apple’s practices started in 2015 when Apple Pay was launched. Officials said that they had indications that the company restricted third-party access to key technology necessary to develop mobile wallet solutions on Apple’s devices.

The company’s response to the accusations was that there were several other options available to European consumers for making payments in addition to its own product. 

Source: Link