The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Apple and Goldman Sachs on Wednesday to pay more than $89 million for mishandling consumer disputes related to Apple Card transactions.

The bureau said Apple failed to send tens of thousands of consumer disputes to Goldman Sachs. Even when Goldman Sachs did receive disputes, the CFPB said the bank did not follow federal requirements when investigating the cases.

Goldman Sachs was ordered to pay a $45 million civil penalty and $19.8 million in redress, while Apple was fined $25 million. The bureau also banned Goldman Sachs from launching new credit cards unless it can provide an adequate plan to comply with the law.

“Apple and Goldman Sachs illegally sidestepped their legal obligations for Apple Card borrowers. Big Tech companies and big Wall Street firms should not behave as if they are exempt from federal law,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra.

Apple Card was first launched in 2019 as a credit card alternative, hinged on Apple Pay, the company’s mobile payment and digital wallet service. The company partnered with Goldman Sachs as its issuing bank, and advertised the card as more simple and transparent than other credit cards.

That December, the companies launched a new feature that allowed users to finance certain Apple devices with the card through interest-free monthly installments.

But the CFPB found that Apple and Goldman Sachs misled consumers about the interest-free payment plans for Apple devices. While many customers thought they would get automatic interest-free monthly payments when they bought Apple devices with an Apple Card, they were still charged interest. Goldman Sachs did not adequately communicate to consumers about how the refunds would work, which meant some people ended up paying additional interest charges, according to the CFPB.

It also meant some consumers had incorrect credit reports, the agency said.

“Apple Card is one of the most consumer-friendly credit cards that has ever been offered. We worked diligently to address certain technological and operational challenges that we experienced after launch and have already handled them with impacted customers,” Nick Carcaterra, vice president of Goldman Sachs corporate communications, told CNBC. “We are pleased to have reached a resolution with the CFPB and are proud to have developed such an innovative and award-winning product alongside Apple.”

Apple said it worked closely with Goldman Sachs to address the issues when it learned about them.

“While we strongly disagree with the CFPB’s characterization of Apple’s conduct, we have aligned with them on an agreement,” an Apple spokesperson said. “We look forward to continuing to deliver a great experience for our Apple Card customers.”

— CNBC’s Hugh Son and Steve Kovach contributed to this report.

CVS Health and UnitedHealth Group are demanding Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and two other commissioners recuse themselves from a suit accusing the companies and other drug middlemen of boosting their profits while inflating insulin costs for Americans. 

In separate motions filed Tuesday night with the FTC, CVS and UnitedHealth argued that all three commissioners have an extensive track record of making public statements that indicate “serious bias” against the companies’ so-called pharmacy benefit managers. 

The companies accused Khan, as well as Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, of incorrectly asserting that PBMs are “price gougers” that hold significant control over the pricing and access to drugs like insulin. CVS said those statements demonstrate that the commissioners have “prejudged this matter,” so their participation in the case “violates due process.” 

“If the opposite of ‘complete fairness’ is ‘blatant bias,’ the Three Commissioners would easily satisfy even that standard,” CVS wrote in a 23-page motion.

Meanwhile, UnitedHealth’s 17-page motion said, “Any judge who made these remarks about a litigant at the outset of a lawsuit would immediately need to recuse for blatant bias.”

The FTC on Wednesday declined CNBC’s request for comment on the motion. 

Other corporate giants, including Amazon and Meta, have unsuccessfully pushed for Khan to be disqualified from previous cases or investigations, citing concerns about her objectivity. Khan has resisted those calls, saying she has never prejudged any case or set of facts. 

The FTC filed the suit last month against the three largest PBMs, CVS Health’s Caremark, UnitedHealth Group‘s Optum Rx and Cigna‘s Express Scripts. All are owned by or connected to health insurers and collectively administer about 80% of the nation’s prescriptions, according to the FTC. 

The FTC filed its complaint through its so-called administrative process, which initiates a proceeding before an administrative judge who would hear the case.

PBMs sit at the center of the drug supply chain in the U.S., negotiating medication rebates with manufacturers on behalf of insurers, creating lists of preferred medications covered by health plans and reimbursing pharmacies for prescriptions. The FTC has been investigating PBMs and their role in insulin prices since 2022.

The agency’s lawsuit argues that the three PBMs have created a “perverse” system that prioritizes high rebates from manufacturers, which leads to “artificially inflated insulin list prices.” The suit also alleges that PBMs favor high-list-price insulins even when insulins with lower list prices become available. 

The lawsuit also includes each PBM’s affiliated group purchasing organization, or GPO, which brokers drug purchases for hospitals and other health-care providers. Zinc Health Services operates as the GPO for Caremark, while Emisar Pharma acts as the GPO for OptumRx. Ascent Health Services is the GPO for Cigna.

The lawsuit is just one of several headwinds CVS is facing. Shares of the company are down more than 20% this year as it grapples with runaway medical costs in its insurance segment and pharmacy reimbursement pressure. 

CVS has engaged advisors in a strategic review of its business, which could potentially involve splitting the company’s insurer from its retail pharmacies. It’s unclear where Caremark would fall in the case of a breakup. 

In the motion Tuesday, CVS alleged that Khan has vilified PBMs during her entire professional career. For example, the company cited a 2022 statement in which Khan said PBMs “practically determine which medicines are prescribed, which pharmacies patients can use, and the amount patients will pay at the pharmacy counter.”

CVS similarly pointed to Slaughter’s previous comments about the allegedly “disturbing,” “unacceptable” and “rotten” rebating practices of PBMs, and how she believes they create “competitive distortions in pharmaceutical markets.” Meanwhile, the company cited Bedoya’s suggestions that “a significant part of the blame” for insulin price increases rests on rebates demanded by PBMs. 

CVS called the prior statements of the three commissioners “incorrect assertions” about Caremark and other PBMs. 

The health-care giant also alleged that during the FTC probe, the three commissioners attended closed events to help fundraise for anti-PBM lobbying groups. Organizers of those events vilified PBMs as “bloodsuckers” and “vampires,” CVS argued in the motion.

The Biden administration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have escalated pressure on PBMs, seeking to increase transparency into their business practices as many patients struggle to afford prescription drugs. Americans pay two to three times more than patients in other developed nations for prescription drugs on average, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

The Federal Trade Commission on Friday sued three large U.S. health companies that negotiate insulin prices, arguing the drug middlemen use practices that boost their profits while “artificially” inflating costs for patients. 

The suit targets the three biggest so-called pharmacy benefit managers, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum Rx, CVS Health’s Caremark and Cigna’s Express Scripts. All are owned by or connected to health insurers and collectively administer about 80% of the nation’s prescriptions, according to the FTC. 

The FTC’s lawsuit also includes each PBM’s affiliated group purchasing organization, which brokers drug purchases for hospitals and other health-care providers. The agency said it could recommend suing drugmakers Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk in the future as well over their role in driving up list prices for their insulin products.

A UnitedHealth spokesperson said the suit “demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works, noting that Optum RX has “aggressively and successfully” negotiated with drug manufacturers.

A CVS spokesperson said Caremark is “proud of the work” it has done to make insulin more affordable for Americans, adding that “to suggest anything else, as the FTC did today, is simply wrong.”

And, a spokesperson for Express Scripts said the suit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks” on PBMs. It comes three days after Express Scripts sued the FTC, demanding that the agency retract its allegedly “defamatory” July report that claimed that the PBM industry is hiking drug prices.

PBMs sit at the center of the drug supply chain in the U.S. They negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers on behalf of insurers, large employers and federal health plans. They also create lists of medications, or formularies, that are covered by insurance and reimburse pharmacies for prescriptions. The FTC has been investigating PBMs since 2022. 

The agency’s suit argues that the three PBMs have created a “perverse” drug rebate system that prioritizes high rebates from drugmakers, which leads to “artificially inflated insulin list prices.” It also alleges that PBMs favor those high-list-price insulins even when more affordable insulins with lower list prices become available. 

The FTC is filing its complaint through its so-called administrative process, which initiates a proceeding before an administrative judge who would hear the case.

“Millions of Americans with diabetes need insulin to survive, yet for many of these vulnerable patients, their insulin drug costs have skyrocketed over the past decade thanks in part to powerful PBMs and their greed,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. 

“The FTC’s administrative action seeks to put an end to the Big Three PBMs’ exploitative conduct and marks an important step in fixing a broken system—a fix that could ripple beyond the insulin market and restore healthy competition to drive down drug prices for consumers,” Rao continued. 

Roughly 8 million Americans with diabetes rely on insulin to survive, and many have been forced to ration the treatment due to high prices, according to the FTC.

The White House has no comment on the FTC’s suit, but has “made clear that no one should pay higher prices because of corporate greed,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Saturday.

President Joe Biden‘s signature Inflation Reduction Act has capped insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries at $35 per month. That policy currently does not extend to patients with private insurance.

The Biden administration and Congress have ramped up pressure on PBMs, seeking to increase transparency into their operations as many Americans struggle to afford prescription drugs. On average, Americans pay two to three times more than patients in other developed nations for prescription drugs, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

The FTC said it remains “deeply troubled” by the role insulin manufacturers play in higher list prices, arguing that they inflate prices in response to PBMs’ demands for higher rebates. Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk control roughly 90% of the U.S. insulin market.

For example, Eli Lilly’s Humalog insulin had a list price of $274 in 2017, a more than 1,200% increase from its $21 list price in 1999, according to the FTC.

The FTC said all drugmakers should “be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns.”

An Eli Lilly spokesperson said the FTC’s suit concerns “aspects of the U.S. health care system that we have long been advocating to reform.” They added that the company last year became the first to cap out-of-pocket costs for all of its insulins at $35 per month for people with private insurance. Eli Lilly also cut some insulin list prices by up to 70%.

Sanofi last year announced a similar $35 monthly price cap for its most commonly prescribed insulin. Novo Nordisk last year also said it would slash the list prices of some of its popular insulins by up to 75%.

A spokesperson for Sanofi said the company has not seen and will not comment on the FTC’s complaint against PBMs. But the French drugmaker agrees with the FTC’s claim that PBMs have “leveraged their position as powerful industry middlemen and have exploited rebates…to benefit themselves while increasing costs for patients and payers at the same time.”

A Novo Nordisk spokesperson said the company is “committed to ensuring patients have affordable access to their medicines, including insulin.” Novo Nordisk does not control the prices patients pay at the pharmacy in the “complex U.S. healthcare system,” the spokesperson noted, pointing to the company’s insulin savings card programs.

Correction: This story has been updated to correct a quote from the FTC.