FAQs
These FAQs explain what the claim is about, who it affects, and what it could mean for consumers.
About this claim
This claim seeks compensation from Apple for more than 50 million UK consumers who are alleged to have faced higher banking charges as a result of Apple’s anti-competitive conduct in relation to Apple Pay.
The claim alleges that Apple has refused app developers and other third parties access to the NFC input (Near Field Communication) and, in doing so, has ensured that Apple Pay is the only solution available to iPhone users in the UK who wish to make contactless payments in-store using their Apple devices. Apple also ties Apple Pay as an in-store mobile wallet to its digital wallet for online payments, and is therefore able to unfairly promote Apple Pay for online transactions to the detriment of rival online payment services.
Apple charges banks and card issuers fees for in-store and online transactions – a practice that is not in line with industry standards. For example, no fees are charged for payments that take place on Android equivalents. However, banks and card issuers are unable to avoid incurring these fees if they want their cards to be available on Apple devices. These additional fees are ultimately borne by UK consumers, as they are passed on by the banks and card issuers through higher costs that are spread across a range of personal banking products.
You can find more information about how Apple Pay works and the alleged anti-competitive conduct on the claim page.
The claim is against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries, including its UK-based entities.
Yes.
In the UK:
- The Payments System Regulator and Financial Conduct Authority have investigated Apple as part of a call for information on big tech and digital wallets to inform the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) investigation into Apple and Google’s ecosystems. This investigation revealed concerns about a lack of innovation and supply of digital wallets.
- The CMA has also designated Apple as having Strategic Market Status (meaning that Apple has substantial and entrenched market power, providing it with a strategic position over the relevant markets) in respect of its mobile platform, which includes digital wallet offerings and NFC access. This means Apple will be subject to greater regulatory scrutiny by the CMA for its mobile platform activity, where its position presents a higher risk of harming competition and innovation.
In the European Union (EU):
- The European Commission investigated the operation of Apple Pay from June 2020 to May 2022 and took the preliminary view expressed in a Statement of Objections that Apple abused its dominant position in relation to mobile wallets.
- In response, Apple offered commitments to the Commission in January 2024 to address the expressed concerns, which included proposals to open up NFC access to app developers. The Commission accepted Apple’s commitments by decision in July 2024.
- As part of its commitments, Apple opened up its NFC technology to third-party developers across the EU and started providing them with free access to the NFC input from July 2024.
- The commitments are not binding in the UK, and while Apple also opened up third-party access to the NFC input in the UK in October 2024, it still charges a fee for such access.
Apple has also been investigated by other national regulators and public bodies in relation to Apple Pay, including in:
- Australia, where the government launched an inquiry into mobile payments in 2021, which led to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launching an inquiry to investigate Apple Pay;
- Switzerland, where, following an investigation by the Swiss competition authority in 2018, Apple made changes to the technical solution that had been restricting alternative, non NFC payment apps in its ecosystem; and
- The Netherlands, where the Dutch competition authority noted anti-competitive concerns on the market for payment apps as part of a broader market study into the role of Big Tech in the Dutch payment market.
A claim has also been brought against Apple relating to Apple Pay by the Department of Justice in the US, alongside separate private actions being pursued by companies in the US.
The claim was filed at The Competition Appeal Tribunal on 22 January 2026.
The Tribunal has scheduled the Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) hearing for 22 April 2027. At the hearing, it will decide whether to certify the claim based on its assessment of James Daley’s suitability to act as the proposed class representative and whether the claim is appropriate to be brought as a collective action.
If the Tribunal certifies the claim, it grants permission (in the form of a Collective Proceedings Order) for it to progress to trial. There are various stages to trial, including disclosure of documents and preparation of factual and technical evidence. Sign up to stay updated on the claim or track its progress on our updates page.
James Daley is seeking an aggregate award of damages of up to £1.5 billion for the class as a whole.
Any aggregate award of damages will then need to be distributed to eligible class members who come forward to claim their share. You should sign up to follow the case’s progress and to receive updates on any future process for distributing compensation.
Claims of this size can take several years to reach a trial. However, it may be possible to resolve the claim sooner through a settlement. Any proposed settlement must be reviewed and approved by the Tribunal.
We will publish updates as the claim progresses, and you can track the progress of the claim by signing up for email updates.
About the class
If you are a UK resident who has used a personal financial product, such as a personal current account, savings account or credit card, from a relevant financial institution between 22 January 2020 and 22 January 2026, and you meet the relevant criteria under the class definition, you are likely to have been affected by Apple’s alleged unlawful conduct irrespective of whether you used Apple Pay or even owned an iPhone, and may be entitled to compensation.
Use our free tool to check if you are eligible to be included in the claim.
For the purposes of this claim, a personal financial product means any financial instrument or service offered to individuals to support the management of personal finances. Relevant examples include personal current accounts, credit cards, mortgages, personal loans, and savings accounts.
A relevant financial institution is any organisation authorised under UK law to provide financial services in the UK, such as banking, investment, insurance, or payment services, and regulated by a UK regulator, for example the Financial Conduct Authority or Prudential Regulation Authority, irrespective of the institution’s place of incorporation or corporate headquarters.
No – you don’t need to be a current or prior Apple or iOS user to be included in this claim. This is because Apple’s actions are alleged to have affected consumers of personal financial products in the UK as a whole.
This claim is an “opt-out” collective action. This means that if you meet the relevant criteria, you will automatically be included in the claim – you do not have to do anything further to fall within the class.
You will only need to sign up to seek compensation if the claim is successful and reaches the distribution stage, and we will provide further notification and details about this in due course. Make sure to sign up for updates to follow the case’s progression and be notified at this stage.
If you don’t want to be a part of the claim, you can opt-out of it. You will be given the chance to do so, if the claim is certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Relevant information on the opt-out procedure will be published on this website, as soon as the claim reaches this stage.
No. You do not have to pay to be part of the claim, and there is no personal risk to you from being a member of the class.
James Daley has secured funding to cover the costs of the claim. For more information on the funding agreements, see About fees and costs, below. James Daley has also put in place after-the-event (ATE) insurance to cover the Defendants’ legal costs if the claim is not successful. ATE insurance is a specific type of insurance to cover the risk of costs in litigation.
About the team
James Daley is a leading consumer campaigner with over 25 years’ experience fighting for fairness in financial services. He is the founder of Fairer Finance and a trusted media commentator, regularly appearing on programmes such as Watchdog, Rip-off Britain and Moneybox.
A class representative is a person or organisation that brings collective proceedings to seek compensation on behalf of the numerous individuals affected by the same alleged unlawful conduct. James Daley is the proposed class representative in this claim, acting through James Daley Class Representative LLP.
The class representative’s role includes:
- making key supervisory decisions throughout the claim including whether to settle the claim;
- taking advice from, and providing instructions to, the lawyers and experts;
- promoting and publicising the claim to reach class members;
- communicating with the class members to keep them updated throughout the process; and
- supervising the distribution of any damages to class members.
The class representative has obligations to act in the best interest of the class when fulfilling their role, and James Daley does not personally profit from the claim.
Milberg London LLP is a leading UK law firm specialising in disputes, including large-scale group litigation, with significant experience acting in group litigation and competition claims. Milberg London’s competition team is involved in some of the most high-profile collective actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), including claims against Sony PlayStation and Valve.
About the fees and costs
James Daley has secured litigation funding from Omni Bridgeway, a leader in dispute and litigation finance, and has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) to finance the claim. This is common where class representatives are not able to fund a claim of this size and public importance themselves.
If the claim is successful, Omni Bridgeway will receive a fee, which is determined with oversight from the Competition Appeal Tribunal. This fee will be calculated depending on the stage the case has reached and the costs Omni Bridgeway has actually incurred in line with the approved case budget. If the claim is not successful, Omni Bridgeway will not receive any payment.
The LFA can be accessed on the documents page.
Milberg London LLP is instructed on a conditional fee agreement, which means only part of its fees are paid by the funder during the claim. If the claim is successful, the remaining fees will be paid, and the legal team may receive a success fee that is proportionate to the element of fees that was discounted and reflective of the risk taken. This approach is common in cases supported by third-party funders.
If the claim is not successful, the legal team will only receive the discounted fees for the work it has undertaken, as paid by the funder.
The Tribunal oversees the amount of any success fees paid to lawyers and funders alongside the distribution of compensation to class members.
About the legal framework
Competition law is the body of law designed to promote market fairness and ensure consumer welfare. It bans anti-competitive agreements between businesses and makes it illegal for businesses to abuse their position of dominance in the market. Competition law in the UK is primarily governed by the Competition Act 1998.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) is a specialist court based in London which hears and decides cases involving competition issues, including collective proceedings. More information on the CAT, including its Rules and Guidance can be found on its website.
Collective proceedings are a specialised form of a legal procedure that enables a class representative to bring an action on behalf of numerous individuals affected by the same alleged unlawful conduct, including infringements of competition law.
Such proceedings enable consumers to pursue claims against large corporations and seek damages, in cases where the cost, risk, and time involved would otherwise prevent an individual from bringing the claim on their own.
If your question is not answered here, please email us at [email protected].
Register for updates
Sign up to receive updates on the progress of the Apple Pay claim and what it means for consumers. You can also take a minute to check if you may have been overcharged.
Your data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy and Milberg’s privacy policy.
What’s happening with this claim?
This claim has been filed against Apple in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. This starts the legal process to decide whether Apple’s conduct in relation to Apple Pay was unlawful and whether affected UK consumers should be compensated through a collective action. The Tribunal has scheduled a hearing for 22 April 2027 to decide whether the claim can proceed as an opt-out collective action.
Sign up for Apple Pay claim updates.
Learn more about Milberg London LLP.