Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—N.D. Ga.: Court allows Apple Pay trade secret claims to proceed, dismisses Georgia RICO count, (Sep 1, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court allowed trade secret and federal racketeering claims to move into discovery after concluding that timeliness issues could not be resolved on the pleadings.

A federal court in Georgia has dismissed Fintiv, Inc.'s Georgia RICO claim against Apple Inc. but allowed the company's federal RICO and trade secret misappropriation claims to move forward. The court held that the Georgia RICO count was preempted by the Georgia Trade Secrets Act because it was based on the same alleged trade secret misconduct underlying Fintiv's trade secret claims. However, the court concluded that it could not determine at the pleading stage that the remaining claims were time-barred and found that Fintiv had adequately alleged trade secret misappropriation and a federal RICO violation (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:25-cv-04413-TRJ (N.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2026)).

Background. According to the first amended complaint, Fintiv, Inc., as successor-in-interest to CorFire, alleges that Apple Inc. improperly acquired and used CorFire's proprietary mobile wallet technology and trade secrets in developing Apple Pay. Fintiv alleged that confidential meetings between CorFire and Apple were conducted under non-disclosure agreements, and that Apple later launched Apple Pay using CorFire's technology. The complaint also alleged that Apple hired two former CorFire executives and benefited from their knowledge of the company's mobile-wallet systems and trade secrets.

Fintiv asserted claims for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Georgia RICO Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Georgia Trade Secrets Act. Apple moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Georgia RICO claim preempted. The court agreed with Apple that the Georgia Trade Secrets Act preempted the Georgia RICO claim. The court found that although Fintiv attempted to characterize the claim through multiple predicate acts, including theft, false statements and computer crimes, those allegations were largely rooted in the alleged acquisition and use of Fintiv's trade secrets.

The court concluded that the asserted predicate acts described the same conduct and injuries alleged in support of the trade secret claims, namely the alleged taking of proprietary information. Because the Georgia RICO claim was premised on the same factual allegations of trade secret misappropriation, the court held that it was preempted and dismissed the claim.

Statute-of-limitations challenge rejected. Apple argued that the trade secret and federal RICO claims were untimely. The company contended that information developed during related patent litigation in Texas demonstrated that Fintiv had notice of potential trade secret misappropriation no later than July 2020.

The court declined to dismiss the claims on limitations grounds. It emphasized that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that a claim is time-barred. The court acknowledged that the Texas litigation record suggested Fintiv possessed some information about similarities between its technology and Apple Pay, prior confidential meetings between Apple and CorFire, and Apple's hiring of former CorFire employees. However, the court found that those facts did not definitively establish that Fintiv had sufficient knowledge to trigger the applicable limitations periods.

The court further pointed to allegations that Apple engaged in a pattern of withholding or delaying discovery in the earlier litigation and that Fintiv did not discover enough information to bring the claims until 2023. Accepting those allegations as true, the court determined that the accrual date for the trade secret and federal RICO claims presented factual questions that could not be resolved at the pleading stage.

Trade secret allegations sufficiently pleaded. Addressing the merits of the trade secret claims, the court held that Fintiv adequately identified the trade secrets at issue. The complaint described proprietary technical designs, implementations, expertise and know-how related to secure-element and near-field communication-enabled mobile-wallet technologies, as well as specific components and operational features of the alleged system.

The court further found that Fintiv adequately alleged that the information was not public, and that reasonable measures had been taken to protect its secrecy, including confidentiality agreements, restricted access and password protections. The court noted that even publicly available information may qualify for trade-secret protection when assembled in a unique combination that adds value.

On misappropriation, the court found sufficient allegations that CorFire disclosed trade secrets to Apple under confidentiality obligations, that Apple incorporated those secrets into Apple Pay, and that Apple later hired former CorFire executives and exploited their knowledge of the technology. Those allegations were enough to state claims under both the federal and Georgia trade secret statutes.

Federal RICO claim survives. The court concluded that Fintiv plausibly alleged a federal RICO enterprise. According to the complaint, Apple worked with card issuers, payment networks, and other entities in a coordinated effort that included disseminating messaging concerning the origins and development of Apple Pay technology. The court found those allegations sufficient, at the pleading stage, to support a common fraudulent purpose and relationships among enterprise members.

The court further held that Fintiv adequately alleged a pattern of racketeering activity. It found that the complaint sufficiently pleaded predicate acts based on trade secret theft and wire fraud. As to wire fraud, the court pointed to allegations that Apple used interstate communications to promote representations that Apple developed Apple Pay technology and that those representations helped conceal the alleged misappropriation.

The court found that Fintiv adequately alleged causation by asserting that the alleged misrepresentations and public reliance on them deprived Fintiv of business opportunities and marketplace recognition connected to the technology. Taken together, the allegations plausibly stated a pattern of racketeering activity extending over a substantial period of time.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-04413-TRJ.

Judge: Johnson, T.

Attorneys: Haylei A. John (Kasowitz LLP) for Fintiv, Inc. Kurt R. Erskine (Polsinelli, PC) for Apple Inc.

Companies: Fintiv, Inc.; Apple Inc.

Cases: RICO GeorgiaNews