A UK competition court has ruled that Apple abused its market power with App Store fees, paving the way for compensation that lawyers say could total up to £1.5 billion for around 36 million iPhone and iPad users.
What The Tribunal Decided
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found that Apple held “near absolute market power” in two linked markets, i.e., app distribution on iOS devices and in-app payment processing, and had used that position to charge “excessive and unfair” commissions, typically up to 30 per cent, on paid apps and in-app purchases.
The judgment, brought by class representative Dr Rachael Kent, actually marks the first collective competition claim to succeed at trial under the UK’s relatively new regime for group actions. Following a seven-week hearing earlier this year, the tribunal concluded that Apple’s restrictions prevented rival app stores and alternative payment options on iPhones and iPads, leaving developers and consumers with no meaningful choice but to use Apple’s system.
Expert evidence submitted to the court showed that a significant share of Apple’s overcharges to developers were passed on to users through higher prices for apps, subscriptions and digital content. The tribunal agreed, finding that Apple’s business model inflated costs for millions of consumers and small businesses across the UK.
Who Is Covered And From When?
The class action covers anyone in the UK who made purchases through the UK version of the App Store on an iPhone or iPad from 1 October 2015 onwards. That includes paid-for apps, in-app purchases and subscriptions bought within apps.
In fact, law firm Hausfeld, representing Dr Kent, estimates that around 36 million people could fall within this category. Both individual consumers and businesses are included. For example, a company that paid for productivity apps on staff iPhones or made in-app purchases for services through Apple’s system could be entitled to a share of the damages, alongside ordinary consumers.
According to the legal team, users who spent regularly could be due significant sums. For example, a fitness app subscription costing £8.99 a month could yield roughly £21.58 back per year, based on the tribunal’s findings. In another example, a £19.99 in-app purchase could equate to around £4 in compensation. The exact payout will depend on how much each person or business spent and the final calculation approved by the court.
How Much Money Are We Talking?
The tribunal has indicated that aggregate damages could reach up to an eye-watering £1.5 billion, subject to a follow-up hearing on how the total will be calculated and distributed. The court also ordered that interest be added at a rate of 8 per cent per year, which could increase the total compensation for purchases made several years ago.
The collective action covers almost a decade of App Store activity, meaning that regular app users, mobile gamers, and subscribers to digital services could all be affected. With around 36 million potential claimants, even modest individual payments could add up to one of the largest consumer compensation cases ever seen in the UK.
Why The Case Was Brought
Dr Rachael Kent, a Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy and Society Education at King’s College London, launched the case in 2021 claiming that Apple’s conduct had led to “exorbitant profits” by excluding competition and forcing developers to use its own payment system on its own terms.
After the ruling, Dr Kent described the outcome as a “landmark victory, not only for App Store users, but for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant”. She added that the judgment “confirms that Apple has been unlawfully overcharging users for more than ten years and that up to £1.5 billion should now be returned to UK consumers and businesses”.
The tribunal agreed with her argument that Apple’s 30 per cent commission was excessive and unfair. It found that a fair rate, based on comparisons with other digital platforms, would have been closer to 17.5 per cent for app distribution and 10 per cent for payment processing.
Apple’s Response And Grounds For Appeal
It’s no surprise that Apple has said it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and will appeal. In a statement issued after the judgment, the company said the tribunal’s view of the app economy was “flawed” and failed to recognise how the App Store had “benefited businesses and consumers across the UK”.
“The App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments,” Apple said. “This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments. The App Store faces vigorous competition from many other platforms — often with far fewer privacy and security protections.”
Apple also argues that because commission is only charged on paid apps and in-app purchases, around 85 per cent of the apps available on the App Store pay no commission at all. It points to its Small Business Programme, which halves the rate of commission to 15 per cent for developers earning less than $1 million a year.
The tribunal, however, rejected Apple’s argument that its restrictions were necessary to guarantee user safety and privacy, ruling that the measures were neither proportionate nor justified in relation to competition law.
What Happens Next?
A further hearing, expected in November, will determine the exact approach to calculating and distributing compensation. The court will consider Apple’s application to appeal at the same time.
Any payments to consumers are, therefore, unlikely to begin until the appeals process is complete. However, Hausfeld says the judgment firmly establishes Apple’s liability, meaning that compensation will follow once the calculations and distribution process are finalised.
For now, users can check their eligibility by reviewing their “Purchase History” under their App Store account settings. Those who have paid for apps or in-app purchases through the UK storefront since October 2015 are likely to qualify.
Why The Decision Matters Beyond iPhones
The ruling comes just days after the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) designated both Apple and Google as having “strategic market status” under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. This means the regulator can now impose legally binding conduct requirements on how the firms operate their app stores, browsers and payment systems.
The CMA has already indicated it could compel Apple to allow rival app stores to operate on iPhones in the UK, potentially ending its long-standing “closed system” where software can only be downloaded through its own store.
Regulators and analysts view the CAT judgment as part of a wider pattern of scrutiny of Apple’s App Store model. The company is already facing pressure in the European Union, where the Digital Markets Act has forced it to permit third-party app stores and alternative payment routes. In the United States, Apple has been the subject of multiple antitrust investigations and private lawsuits over similar issues.
What The Court Said About Market Power And Pass-Through
The tribunal found that Apple’s control over app distribution on iOS gave it “near absolute market power”, effectively allowing it to dictate terms to developers and consumers. It also accepted evidence that roughly half of Apple’s overcharge was passed on to end users, which formed the basis for estimating total damages at up to £1.5 billion.
The court compared Apple’s commission levels with other digital marketplaces, including Microsoft’s and Epic Games’ app stores, and found its rates to be significantly higher. The tribunal concluded that the excess pricing could not be justified by any additional value or innovation provided by Apple’s system.
What Users And Businesses Should Know
The case is a collective opt-out action, meaning UK-based consumers and businesses who meet the eligibility criteria will automatically be included unless they choose to opt out. This means they will not need to sign up in advance but will be required to provide proof of purchase when the compensation scheme is finalised.
The tribunal’s order of interest at 8 per cent per year also means that older purchases, especially those made between 2015 and 2020, could attract larger payouts.
Dr Kent’s legal team has said further updates will be issued once the next phase of the case concludes. For now, eligible users are advised to retain any records of App Store purchases or subscriptions made on UK-registered Apple accounts.
The Wider Industry Context
This case is being watched closely by technology firms and regulators because it sets a new benchmark for competition enforcement in the digital economy. It also highlights how the UK’s collective action framework can be used to hold major global platforms to account for past conduct that inflated prices for consumers and businesses.
While Apple maintains that its ecosystem provides unique safety and privacy benefits, the tribunal’s findings appear to have called into question the balance between those protections and fair competition. The upcoming damages hearing will now determine what that accountability looks like in financial terms for millions of UK users.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
The outcome of this case may mark a defining moment in how the UK approaches digital market regulation. For example, by confirming that a global company of Apple’s scale can be held accountable through collective legal action, the tribunal has set a clear precedent that could influence future cases involving other dominant tech platforms. It also signals that the UK’s competition and consumer law framework is now capable of addressing the realities of platform-based markets, where small differences in commission rates or payment terms can affect millions of users and developers simultaneously.
For UK businesses, the implications extend well beyond potential compensation. For example, many small firms that rely on mobile apps for marketing, payments, or service delivery have long been subject to the same terms as global developers, often without the ability to negotiate or switch to alternative platforms. A successful compensation process could return meaningful sums to those businesses, but more importantly, it may drive structural changes that reduce dependency on a single distribution channel. In a more competitive marketplace, smaller developers and service providers could benefit from lower costs, broader reach, and greater freedom over how they price and deliver their products.
Also, developers and consumers are likely to watch closely for signs of how Apple responds. If the appeal fails and the compensation framework goes ahead, the company may be forced to reconsider its UK App Store model to comply with competition expectations. That could include opening its payment systems to external providers or lowering commission rates to align more closely with those found in other digital marketplaces. Such changes would not only reshape Apple’s UK operations but could also influence its strategy across Europe, where similar legal and regulatory challenges are already underway.
The ruling also gives some momentum to regulators such as the Competition and Markets Authority, which has already indicated plans to impose new obligations on major digital platforms. Having both the CAT judgment and the CMA’s new enforcement powers in play strengthens the UK’s position as one of the leading jurisdictions for digital competition oversight. It could, in time, make the country a test case for how to balance consumer protection, business innovation, and fair access in the app economy.
For consumers, the short-term focus will be on how quickly compensation arrives and what steps they must take to claim it. However, the longer-term significance appears to lie in how this case may reshape the digital ecosystem itself. Whether through greater transparency, reduced commissions, or the introduction of alternative app stores, the outcome has the potential to alter how users, developers, and major tech firms interact across the UK’s mobile marketplace.