On September 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White certified a class of card issuers in an antitrust suit accusing Apple of blocking rival tap-to-pay wallets from the iPhone's NFC hardware. The ruling lets thousands of U.S. banks and credit unions pursue their Apple Pay fee claims in one case, according to AppleInsider, an Apple-focused news site, which also said the ruling does not decide whether Apple broke antitrust law or owes the issuers money forums.appleinsider.com. The same report said the credit unions' lawsuit puts the fee at 0.15% of each Apple Pay credit purchase and half a cent per debit transaction. The Apple Post, another Apple news site, reported that the lawsuit alleges those fees generate as much as $1 billion a year for Apple theapplepost.com.
If that allegation holds, $1 billion is about 0.24% of the $416 billion in revenue Apple reported for fiscal 2025 sec.gov. It is also under 1% of a services business that CNBC said generates more than $100 billion a year cnbc.com. Our read is that the refund is the smaller part of the exposure, and the request to change Apple's practices, which the certified class carries forward, is the part with reach beyond this case.
Apple's uniform rates are what let one case stand for thousands
The fee falls on the issuer, not on the merchant or the cardholder. AppleInsider reported that Judge White found three questions could be decided once for the whole class: whether Apple had monopoly power, whether it harmed competition, and whether its fees injured issuers. The report said he also found that Apple's uniform credit and debit rates could supply a common way to calculate overcharges. Apple did not dispute that the class was large enough to meet numerosity, the report said. It gave the example of a $100 credit purchase costing the issuer 15 cents, while a debit tap costs the same half cent at any size. On a $100 purchase, then, the credit fee is 30 times the debit fee (15 cents divided by 0.5 cents), so credit-heavy issuers carry more of the alleged overcharge. The ruling also lets Christopher Vellturo, the plaintiffs' damages expert, testify. He compares Apple's issuer fees with the zero-dollar fees he attributes to competing mobile wallets and treats the difference as the overpayment. White found Apple's objections concern how convincing that analysis is, leaving Apple free to attack its assumptions as the case continues forums.appleinsider.com.
Apple has already opened the contactless chip the suit says it withheld
Starting with iOS 18.1 in 2024, eligible third-party apps can handle contactless iPhone payments without routing them through Apple Pay. AppleInsider, citing Apple's documentation, reported that developers still need Apple's approval and a commercial agreement that includes platform fees. The same report said expanded NFC access could affect what changes remain necessary but does not resolve claims over fees already paid. It also noted that a 2023 ruling kept the monopolization claim alive while dismissing an allegation that Apple unlawfully tied iOS devices to Apple Pay forums.appleinsider.com.
The Apple Post listed third-party access as available in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand and the European Economic Area. It also reported that Apple has denied its Apple Pay practices violate competition law theapplepost.com.
Accounts of the expert ruling do not match, and the fee figures are the plaintiffs'
MacTech ran a brief item reprinted from AppleWorld.Today. It said the testimony Apple failed to exclude is evidence attorneys say establishes "common proof" of monopoly power in an aftermarket for tap-and-pay iOS mobile wallets and in a broader market for all mobile wallets mactech.com. AppleInsider described the admitted witness as the damages expert. Neither account quotes the order, and neither makes clear whether they are describing one witness or two.
The fee rates and the annual revenue estimate come from the complaint. The Apple Post attributed the rates to the plaintiffs and the revenue figure to the lawsuit's allegations theapplepost.com. Neither has been tested at trial. Our read is that market definition is where Apple's defence will concentrate. Vellturo's benchmark is Android wallets, while the monopoly theory rests on an iOS-only aftermarket, and a court that folds Android into the market would weaken both.
The same access theory runs through a separate case. The Justice Department and 16 other state and district attorneys general sued Apple under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in the District of New Jersey. They allege Apple maintains a smartphone monopoly partly by "withholding critical access points" from developers Justice Department Sues Apple for….
Apple shares closed at $341.07 on September 25, up 1.53% on the day, three days after a 52-week high of $345.34 on September 22 cnbc.com. Our read is that the damages case turns on one number the court has now let the plaintiffs put forward: the gap between Apple's rate and the zero Vellturo attributes to rival wallets, measured in a market Apple will argue must include Android.