UK Tribunal Rules Against Apple in App Store Case

Apple found to have overcharged developers and restricted competition, facing potential £1.5 billion in damages.

Apple has lost a significant legal battle in the United Kingdom, where the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that the company abused its dominant position in the app distribution market. The decision stems from a lawsuit brought on behalf of millions of iPhone and iPad users, alleging that Apple imposed excessive and unfair commission fees on app developers. Between October 2015 and the end of 2020, the tribunal found that Apple restricted competition and charged developers commissions well above a fair rate. The ruling could result in damages amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds.

Tribunal Findings and Apple’s Response

The CAT concluded that Apple’s standard commission—typically around 30%—was significantly higher than a benchmark rate of 17.5%, leading to overcharges passed on to consumers. Developers were found to have transferred approximately half of these excess costs to users, reinforcing the case’s consumer impact. Apple, which has faced increasing scrutiny from regulators in both the U.S. and Europe, rejected the tribunal’s assessment. A company spokesperson argued that the ruling misrepresented the App Store’s role in supporting developers and ensuring a secure user experience.

Apple has announced plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that its practices reflect a competitive and dynamic app economy. A follow-up hearing is scheduled for next month to determine how damages will be calculated and whether the appeal will proceed. The case, valued at £1.5 billion ($2 billion), represents one of the most high-profile challenges to Apple’s App Store policies in the UK. It also follows a recent complaint filed with European antitrust regulators over similar concerns.

Background and Legal Arguments

The lawsuit was initiated by Rachael Kent, a British academic, who claimed that Apple earned excessive profits by excluding rival app distribution channels and enforcing restrictive terms on developers. Her legal team argued that Apple’s control over app distribution on iOS devices amounted to a monopoly, enabling it to impose inflated commission rates. Apple denied these allegations, asserting that its fees were justified by the value and security the App Store provides. Nevertheless, the tribunal sided with the plaintiffs, citing anti-competitive behavior and unfair pricing.

The CAT’s ruling emphasized that Apple’s commission structure created a financial burden for developers and, by extension, consumers. It also noted that the company’s practices limited market access for alternative app distribution methods. Apple’s defense centered on the benefits of its ecosystem, but the tribunal found these arguments insufficient to justify the pricing model. The outcome may influence how other jurisdictions assess similar cases involving digital marketplaces.

Implications for Tech Regulation and Future Cases

This case marks the first major class action-style lawsuit against a technology company to reach trial under the UK’s collective action regime, which has been in place for a decade. While previous cases have struggled to deliver consumer victories, this ruling could signal a shift in how such claims are handled. Several other lawsuits are pending, including a case against Google over Play Store commissions, scheduled for trial in 2026. That proceeding will run alongside a related claim by Epic Games, which is also engaged in litigation with Apple in the United States.

Other tech firms, including Amazon and Microsoft, are facing similar legal challenges in the UK. The ruling has been welcomed by proponents of collective legal action, who see it as a validation of the system’s ability to hold powerful companies accountable. Kent stated that the decision demonstrates that no corporation is beyond the reach of the law, regardless of its size or influence. The case may serve as a precedent for future regulatory and legal scrutiny of digital platform practices.