The lawsuit alleges that Apple obtained confidential trade secrets from Fintiv’s predecessor, CorFire, during a series of meetings held as early as 2011 and 2012. During this time, Apple was under pressure to develop a mobile payment solution but lacked the internal capabilities to do so.<\/p>\n
Fintiv claims that Apple approached CorFire under the pretense of exploring a business partnership. These discussions allegedly included in-depth technical exchanges, some of which involved sensitive information CorFire uploaded to a file-sharing platform maintained by Apple.<\/p>\n
Apple fraudulently induced CorFire to enter an NDA enabling Apple to gain access to CorFire’s mobile wallet technology and trade secrets. Apple then unlawfully exploited that access by incorporating into Apple Pay features previously found only in CorFire’s proprietary secure element and mobile wallet technologies that were protected as confidential trade secrets.<\/p>\n
\u2013 Fintiv representative for IPWatchdog, August 2025<\/p>\n
After gaining access to CorFire’s proprietary information, Apple reportedly ended the talks \u2013 the eventual partnership was called off \u2013 and instead used the acquired knowledge to create and launch Apple Pay in 2014.<\/p>\n
The filing claims Apple misled CorFire into signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which it then used to access and leverage CorFire’s secure element and mobile wallet technologies \u2013 previously guarded as trade secrets \u2013 without authorization.<\/p>\n
Fintiv also contends that Apple went on to build a network of partners, including credit card processors and banks, to profit from Apple Pay. The complaint argues that Apple concealed its unauthorized use of CorFire’s technology by promoting a false narrative that it was the sole developer of Apple Pay. Fintiv describes this as dishonest behavior, and if the accusations are confirmed in the court, it will be an understatement.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit also claims that Apple has a history of misusing partnerships to get access to other companies’ private technology. It points to similar situations with Masimo and Valencell, Inc., which focused on heart-monitoring tools<\/a>. In both examples, Fintiv says Apple started partnerships but then used the companies’ technologies in its own products.<\/p>\n Marc Kasowitz, Fintiv’s lead attorney from the firm Kasowitz LLP, called Apple’s conduct one of the most serious examples of corporate wrongdoing he has encountered in his decades-long legal career.<\/p>\n We’ll be keeping an eye on this case and keep you posted.<\/p>\n Unlimited by Mint Mobile at $15\/mo<\/p>\n Get 50% off \u2013 try it for 3 months today!<\/p>\n We may earn a commission if you make a purchase<\/p>\n![\"Unlimited](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Unlimited-by-Mint-Mobile-at-15mo.webp.png\")
<\/p>\n