Tribunal ruled that Apple had abused its dominant position by shutting out competition and charging excessive prices.
Published On 23 Oct 2025
Click here to share on social media
share2
Contents
Landmark mass lawsuit
The recent judgement by the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) marks quite a significant moment. It centres on allegations that Apple abused its dominant position, charging hefty commissions to app developers. This is indeed a notable turn of events, as this case, valued around £1.5 billion, represents the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant under the UK’s class action regime.
The Tribunal’s Ruling
The CAT decreed that from October 2015 to the end of 2020, Apple suppressed competition in app distribution. Charging what were deemed “excessive and unfair prices” left them with unjustifiably large profits. Apple, however, disputes these findings and intends to appeal, claiming the judgement misinterprets a flourishing app economy.
Meanwhile, planning for a subsequent hearing will determine damage calculations and evaluate Apple’s request for appeal. Apple expressed that this decision disregards the role of the App Store in aiding developer success and ensuring consumers find a safe environment to explore apps.
Exorbitant Profits
Rachael Kent, the determined Briton behind the lawsuit, argued that Apple profited exorbitantly by monopolising app distribution and in-app purchases. Apple’s 100% grip, she claimed, led to restrictive terms and steep commissions, which the tribunal deemed over the top.
The CAT highlighted the disparity: developers faced a combined 17.5% commission on app buys, in contrast to Apple’s usual 30%. Furthermore, developers passed on half of this overcharge to consumers, making the effect widespread.
Broader Implications and Future Cases
Thursday’s ruling doesn’t stand in isolation. It follows European antitrust complaints. The decision is potentially momentous, portending wider implications for the likes of Google and Epic Games. Each faces impending scrutiny over app store commissions and market practices. Google’s associated case, paralleling these events, will grace the courts in October 2026.
A Message to All
Kent asserted this ruling amplifies Britain’s collective action framework. It resoundingly declares that no company, however affluent or influential, remains exempt from the law.
In related developments, other technology behemoths like Amazon and Microsoft face their own challenges at the CAT, promising a fascinating few years for legal observers. The global pressure upon tech giants seems to be tightening, as regulatory bodies across continents remain vigilant.
This report, unaffected by any underlying technology, showcases the UK’s proactive stance in ensuring fair play in digital commerce. It is an unfolding saga that any engaged observer would do well to watch.
