SAN FRANCISCO — There are two new developments in the courts related to credit unions. In the first case, Apple Inc. has asked a federal appeals court for permission to review a class-action antitrust lawsuit brought by three credit unions challenging the technology company’s practices involving Apple Pay and the fees financial institutions pay to participate in its mobile payments system. In the second case, Stanford FCU and four other FIs have won a case related to a crypto scam.
In the case of the request by Apple, filed Oct. 7 with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the latest development in litigation originally filed in 2022 by Affinity Credit Union, GreenState Credit Union and Consumers Cooperative Credit Union.
According to federal court records, Apple filed a sealed petition seeking permission to appeal under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows appeals courts to consider challenges to decisions granting or denying class-action certification.
The appeals court assigned the matter case number 26-6623 on Oct. 8. The publicly available docket confirms Apple’s petition but does not disclose the company’s specific legal arguments because the petition was filed under seal.
What the Credit Unions Are Alleging
The lawsuit alleges Apple violated federal antitrust laws through restrictions associated with Apple Pay and contactless payment technology on its iPhones and other devices.
The credit unions contend Apple’s control over access to the technology has limited competition in mobile payments and allowed the company to impose fees on financial institutions issuing cards that consumers use through Apple Pay.
The proposed class includes U.S. financial institutions and other entities that issued payment cards enabled for Apple Pay and paid Apple fees for transactions involving those cards, according to federal court documents.
The litigation could have significant implications for credit unions and banks because of the costs associated with providing mobile payment services and the growing importance of digital wallets in consumer transactions.
Judge Certified Class in September
The appeal request follows a Sept. 23 decision by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granting class certification, allowing the lawsuit to proceed on behalf of a broader group of payment card issuers.
White also denied Apple’s motion to exclude expert testimony that the plaintiffs contend supports their allegations of monopoly power, according to the law firms representing the credit unions.
Class certification does not establish that Apple violated antitrust laws. Rather, it permits the plaintiffs to pursue their claims collectively.
The credit unions’ attorneys said the ruling was an important development in their efforts to recover fees allegedly charged as a result of Apple’s restrictions.
“We are pleased with the ruling and look forward to next steps of litigation,” said Steve Berman, co-founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs.
Fees at the Center of Dispute
According to the lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Apple has charged U.S. card issuers:
- Credit cards: 15 basis points, or 0.15%, of transactions made through Apple Pay.
- Debit cards: 0.5 cents per transaction.
- Competing Android wallets: No comparable issuer transaction fees, according to the plaintiffs.
The credit unions contend the fees have generated as much as $1 billion annually for Apple and are higher than they would be in a competitive mobile wallet market.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for card issuers as well as injunctive relief addressing Apple’s allegedly anticompetitive practices.
Apple has disputed the allegations and opposed class certification.
What’s Next
The appeals court must first decide whether to accept Apple’s request for review. Filing a petition under Rule 23(f) does not automatically result in an appeal being heard or overturn the district court’s certification decision.
The publicly available appellate docket lists Apple’s petition, its motion to file under seal and a scheduling notice. It does not establish that the 9th Circuit has granted permission to appeal.
Stanford FCU, Four Other Companies Win Dismissal Of Crypto Scam Lawsuit
Separately, Stanford Federal Credit Union and four other financial services companies won dismissal Oct. 14 of a lawsuit brought by a California couple seeking to hold them responsible for nearly $570,000 allegedly lost in a cryptocurrency investment scam, Justia Law reported.
U.S. District Judge Noël Wise dismissed the claims against Stanford FCU, Community Federal Savings Bank, Choice Financial Group, The Currency Cloud and Mercury Advisory LLC without permission to amend the complaint again, and ordered the case closed.
The couple, identified in court records as John and Jane Doe, alleged the scheme began with a Facebook advertisement promoting an investment school. After initially using the platform successfully, they were directed to wire money to businesses allegedly associated with the scam, according to the court’s earlier Feb. 13 order, according to Justia Law.
The couple alleged those businesses held accounts at Community Federal and Choice Financial. Their money subsequently moved through Currency Cloud, TranSwap or Mercury, according to the allegations summarized in that order. They accused the receiving institutions of failing to follow customer identification and anti-money-laundering requirements when opening accounts. They also alleged Stanford FCU failed to adequately investigate after they reported the fraud and sought to recall their transfers, Justia Law reported.
Why The Claims Failed
In the Oct. 14 ruling, Wise found the couple had authorized the wire transfers and even requested expedited processing, defeating their refund claim under California’s law governing funds transfers. Their Fair Credit Billing Act claim was untimely, she ruled. law.justia.com
Wise also found California’s funds-transfer law displaced several other claims. The couple failed to sufficiently allege that the other four companies knew about the fraud, a necessary element of their aiding-and-abetting claims.
Earlier Opportunity To Amend
The couple filed the original lawsuit Aug. 27, 2025, naming 16 defendants and asserting 15 claims, including fraud, negligence, breach of contract and securities-law violations. They voluntarily dismissed EverBank from the litigation in November 2025, according to the February order, Justia Law said.
Wise initially dismissed the complaint Feb. 13 while allowing amendments to several claims. She said the original pleading did not adequately explain how individual defendants violated the laws cited or caused the couple’s alleged injuries, according to Justia.com
The amended complaint failed to correct those deficiencies, Wise concluded Oct. 14. Claims against TranSwap and unidentified defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
