Financial Campaigner Launches £1.5bn UK Class Action Against Apple Over Apple Pay
The financial campaigner James Daley has initiated a groundbreaking £1.5bn class action lawsuit against Apple, targeting the technology giant's conduct regarding its Apple Pay mobile wallet service. This represents the first UK legal challenge specifically addressing Apple's practices in relation to its contactless payment system.
Allegations of Anti-Competitive Behaviour
Daley, who founded the consumer advocacy group Fairer Finance, claims that Apple engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by making Apple Pay the exclusive contactless payment service available to iPhone users in Britain throughout the past decade. This alleged monopolistic position enabled Apple to impose what campaigners describe as hidden fees on financial institutions.
The lawsuit contends that these additional charges were subsequently passed on to consumers through increased banking costs, affecting an estimated 50 million UK residents. Crucially, Daley argues that these costs impacted all banking customers, not just those who own iPhones or use Apple Pay directly.
Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Context
The case has been formally filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will now determine whether the class action can proceed to a full hearing. This legal action follows months of increased regulatory scrutiny from UK authorities including:
- The Competition and Markets Authority
- The Payments Systems Regulator
These regulatory bodies have been examining digital wallet services across the technology sector, with particular attention to competition and consumer protection issues.
Consumer Impact and Compensation Claims
According to the lawsuit documentation, approximately 98% of UK consumers use banks that have listed cards on Apple Pay, suggesting the vast majority of the population may have been affected by the alleged practices. The legal action claims that equivalent payments on Android devices do not attract similar fees, creating what campaigners describe as an unfair market distortion.
Daley stated: "People will have no idea they've been paying more for everyday banking because of the way Apple has operated Apple Pay. By shutting out competition and charging hidden fees, Apple has pushed up costs for millions of consumers."
While individual compensation might average around £26 per consumer if the case succeeds, Daley emphasised the broader principle: "I'm bringing this claim because consumers have been treated unfairly, and I want to help them get back what they're owed. It's also important that big firms like Apple are held to account for this kind of anti-competitive behaviour."
Apple's Response and Defence
Apple has strongly rejected the allegations, describing the lawsuit as "misguided and should be dismissed." The company maintains that Apple Pay represents just one of many payment options available to UK consumers and emphasises its security benefits.
In an official statement, Apple clarified: "Apple does not charge fees to consumers or merchants for using Apple Pay, and banks see meaningful benefits from offering Apple Pay to their customers – most notably fraud reduction."
The technology firm also highlighted recent technical developments, including the introduction of near-field technology (NFC) and secure element (SE) application interfaces that allow third-party developers to enable contactless transactions from their own applications within the UK market.
Broader Implications for UK Consumers
The lawsuit alleges that the additional costs imposed through Apple Pay transactions have been absorbed by UK consumers through various personal banking products, including:
- Current accounts
- Credit cards
- Savings products
- Mortgage arrangements
Daley concluded: "The way Apple has run Apple Pay has quietly increased banking costs for consumers over many years. I want to put a stop to that – and secure compensation for the millions of people who have been affected."
This landmark case represents a significant development in UK consumer protection law and could establish important precedents regarding technology companies' responsibilities in the financial services sector.
