“Apple and Goldman’s agreement incentivized an earlier introduction of Apple Card by giving Apple the right to seek $25 million in liquidated damages for each 90-day delay caused by Goldman.”

💡 This contractual clause created extreme financial pressure to launch quickly, even if consumer protection systems were incomplete.

“On June 25, 2020, Respondent added a new ‘forms feature’ to the Report an Issue functionality, which asked consumers to provide additional information by completing an additional form. However, when tens of thousands of consumers did not complete the additional form, Apple failed to send the disputes to Goldman, and neither Apple nor Goldman investigated these disputes.”

💡 Tens of thousands of consumer disputes were simply ignored because of a flawed two-step process.

“Respondent’s failure to send Billing Error Notices through the Report an Issue functionality to Goldman caused substantial injuries to consumers, including to consumers who… were the subject of Adverse Reports to CRAs by Goldman concerning disputed amounts before Goldman or Respondent reviewed the Billing Error Notices at issue, which may have affected consumers’ creditworthiness.”

💡 Consumers’ credit scores were damaged for charges they had formally disputed, affecting their ability to borrow and their financial stability.

“Through representations in advertisements emphasizing the ease and simplicity of Apple Card and through representations during the ACMI enrollment process, Apple and Goldman misled consumers to expect that purchases of Apple devices would automatically be enrolled in ACMI when they were not.”

💡 Apple’s marketing promised automatic enrollment in interest-free financing, but the reality was manual opt-in, leading thousands to pay unexpected interest.

“Until at least July 2020, when consumers used a browser other than Respondent’s ‘Safari’ or used ‘Safari’ in private mode during the checkout process for purchasing Apple devices from Respondent’s website, Respondent did not display an option to enroll in ACMI.”

💡 Apple materially interfered with consumers’ ability to access interest-free financing by hiding the option based on browser choice.

“In addition, Respondent’s customer service representatives informed some consumers that iPhones purchased with an Apple Card would be automatically enrolled in ACMI.”

💡 Even Apple’s own representatives reinforced the false expectation that enrollment was automatic.

“Until at least August 2020, after consumers had already purchased Apple devices without enrolling in ACMI, Apple and Goldman required consumers to return the devices and repurchase before they could be enrolled in ACMI.”

💡 Consumers who missed enrollment had to go through a burdensome return and repurchase process, adding insult to injury.

“Consumers submitted tens of thousands of complaints related to ACMI enrollment.”

💡 The scale of consumer complaints shows this was not an isolated glitch but a systemic failure.

“By failing to send Billing Error Notices to Goldman for resolution, Apple engaged in unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B).”

💡 The CFPB made a formal legal finding that Apple’s conduct violated federal consumer protection law.

“By making material representations that reasonably misled consumers about enrollment in ACMI, Respondent engaged in deceptive acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B).”

💡 The CFPB formally found that Apple’s marketing was deceptive under federal law.

“By materially interfering with consumers’ understanding about their enrollment in ACMI, Respondent violated the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), (d)(1), 5536(a)(1)(B).”

💡 The CFPB found that hiding the ACMI option constituted an abusive practice under federal law.

“By this Stipulation, Respondent has consented to the issuance of this Consent Order by the Bureau under sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5563, 5565, without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law.”

💡 Apple settles without admitting wrongdoing, shielding itself from downstream lawsuits and preserving its public reputation.

“These injuries were not reasonably avoidable because neither Respondent nor Goldman took steps necessary to make consumers aware that, if consumers did not complete the additional form, the Billing Error Notices at issue would not be investigated.”

💡 Consumers had no way to know their disputes were being ignored, making the harm unavoidable.

“Under section 1055(c) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c), by reason of the violations of law described in Section V of this Consent Order, Respondent must pay a civil money penalty of $25 million to the Bureau.”

💡 Apple’s $25 million penalty is the financial consequence, though critics argue it is too small to deter future misconduct.

“This Consent Order will terminate on the later of 5 years from the Effective Date or 5 years from the most recent date that the Bureau initiates an action alleging any violation of the Consent Order by Respondent if such action is initiated within 5 years of the Effective Date.”

💡 Apple will be under CFPB supervision for five years, with potential for extended monitoring if violations recur.