The United Kingdom's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) delivered a significant ruling, finding that Apple imposed excessive and unfair charges on consumers through its App Store ecosystem. This landmark decision compels Apple to potentially compensate nearly 20 million iPhone and iPad users across the UK with an aggregate sum reaching up to £1.5 billion. The tribunal scrutinized the standard 30% commission levied by Apple on application sales and in-app transactions, concluding that this rate constituted an abuse of a dominant position.
The legal action, framed as the first US-style class-action trial of its kind to succeed at trial in the UK, was spearheaded by lead claimant Dr. Rachael Kent. The scope of the claim covers transactions occurring between October 1, 2015, and December 2020, with the CAT finding that Apple abused its dominant position by foreclosing competition in both the app distribution and in-app payment services markets. Affected individuals are currently projected to receive individual restitutions ranging from £27 to £75, with final quantification expected following a hearing scheduled for after November 3, 2025.
The CAT determined that developers suffered an overcharge based on the difference between the charged commission and a fair rate of 17.5% for distribution and 10% for in-app payments. Furthermore, the tribunal assessed that developers passed on 50% of this overcharge to consumers. Apple has formally indicated its intent to challenge this determination through an appeal process, stating the ruling takes a flawed view of the competitive app economy.
This development arrives as the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has separately designated both Apple and Google as entities holding 'strategic market status' within the mobile technology sphere, signaling heightened regulatory scrutiny over their gatekeeper roles. The ruling represents a pivotal moment in digital marketplace governance, providing a strong precedent for consumer redress against platform dominance by confirming that Apple's restrictions could not be justified as necessary or proportionate.