Dr Kent’s action against Apple is the first case brought under the UK’s collective action regime to reach a successful conclusion at trial, here against the tech giant, Apple.
Background
Dr Rachael Kent, (‘Kent‘) is a senior lecturer at King’s College London in Digital Economy, which is part of the department of Digital Humanities. She is a leading researcher and author, focusing on many aspects of digital culture and behaviours, and their impact on our mental and physical health.
Between 1 October 2015 and 15 November 2024, Kent alleged that Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd (‘Apple‘) had charged abusive prices to app developers. This had resulted in the developers charging higher prices to the Apple device users who made app-related payments.
The particular price at issue was the charge by Apple to developers of commission at a rate of 30%, on the price paid by users when downloading an app or making an iOS in-app payment. Put simply, 30% of the purchase price for an app, app subscription or in-app purchase goes straight to Apple. This is because Apple requires that all app purchases go through its own App Store payment system, which allows them to impose this 30% commission. Further, Apple have blocked other developers from offering alternative payment systems, which has meant that iPad and iPhone users have paid more than they would have done otherwise, over this period.
Kent alleged class damages of between £1.2 – £2.2 billion, which worked out at approximately between £27 to £75 per user.
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s judgment
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘CAT‘) found in favour of Kent on all aspects of the claim, agreeing that users have been overcharged for buying apps, paying for subscriptions and making in-app purchases in popular apps such as YouTube, Tinder, Fortnite and Candy Crush, to name just a few. It was noted that this commission did not apply to purchases of physical goods or services, such as Deliveroo or Uber, but only digital services.
The CAT agreed that Apple had abused its dominant position in various iOS app-related services, by preventing competition from rival providers by using exclusive dealing and tying practices, and excessive unfair pricing. They concluded that Apple had abused its market leading, dominant position by imposing “exclusionary practices” such as these and charging “excessive and unfair” fees to its users making these purchases.
The CAT concluded that Apple had been unlawfully charging users in this way for over ten years and that this equated to over £1.5 billion for Apple, which was now to be returned to those users. This compensation is likely to be split between some 36 million UK consumers and businesses.
Apple’s defence
Apple tried unsuccessfully to argue that this commission structure necessarily took place within Apple’s overall digital “ecosystem”, contending that this integration between the device, the operating system and the services provided to the users, including the App Store, were necessarily interconnected and that the benefits of that integration to the end user should be taken into account when considering the issues of dominance and market abuse. These assertions, however, did not prove persuasive to the CAT. Indeed, they stated that an environment of fair competition with other providers would actually be “much more likely to deliver the benefits that consumers want, in the form and at the price point they want them”.
Outcome
There is no doubt that this is a significant victory for claimants, as the two previous collective proceedings to reach trial were both dismissed, Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC 1381/7/7/21 and Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Limited and Another 1304/7/7/19.
Following the outcome of the CAT’s decision, Kent was unequivocal in highlighting the significance of this victory against Apple, noting that it was both a demonstration of how well the UK’s collective action regime was working as well as being an “empowering” victory for ordinary people against the dominance of powerful technology giants, such as Apple.
With great power comes great responsibility.” Voltaire
Next steps
However, Apple have stated that they “strongly disagreed” with the CAT’s decision and that they intend to appeal. Further, the recent decision of Evans v Barclays (2026) is likely to offer some weight to Apple’s appeal, as the Supreme Court reconfirmed the common law rule that findings made by another decision-maker are not admissible as evidence of the facts. This is relevant to Apple as the CAT accorded a “high degree of respect” to a prior Competition and Markets Authority study as part of their reasoning in this judgment. It will be very interesting to see how Apple’s appeal progresses going forward.
Expert Evidence prides itself on assisting throughout the legal process where required and is a professional firm concentrating on the four main areas of dispute resolution; acting as expert witnesses in financial litigation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The firm has a civil, criminal and international practice and has advised in many recent cases. Areas of specialisation include banking, lending, regulation, investment, and tax.
Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.
