On 23 October 2025, the CAT upheld Dr. Kent’s claim on behalf of around 36 million class members, alleging that Apple violated Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the EU Treaty. The claim concerns Apple’s alleged exclusionary practices—such as exclusive dealing and tying—targeting two markets: iOS app distribution services and iOS in-app payment services. Apple is also accused of charging developers a standard commission rate of 30%, which is deemed excessive and unfair.
The relevant markets were those identified by the Class Representative: one for iOS app distribution services and another for iOS in-app payment services. Apple dominates these markets, holding nearly complete market power in both. The Tribunal determined that Apple’s monopoly status in both markets, along with its contractual restrictions that create very high barriers to entry, clearly indicates dominance.
Apple contended that it faced competitive constraints, indicating a lack of dominance; these constraints included competition in the devices market and the market power of high-value users and developers. The Tribunal was not convinced that these constraints, along with other arguments made by Apple, such as the decline in the effective commission rate over time, were enough to overturn its conclusion of dominance in both markets.
Apple has violated Chapter II and Article 102 by restricting competition in both relevant markets through imposed limitations. These restrictions include requiring that iOS apps be distributed only via the App Store and mandating that iOS apps and in-app purchases use Apple’s payment systems. The Tribunal concluded that Apple’s claim that its conduct constitutes competition on the merits in the devices market is fundamentally unsustainable.
Apple also violated Chapter II and Article 102 by tying its payment services in the iOS in-app payment market to the App Store; the Tribunal found that all four conditions for a tying arrangement were met.
Apple has exploited its dominant position by charging excessive and unfair commissions on developers for iOS app distribution and in-app payments. The Tribunal examined the Class Representative’s claim under the test set out in United Brands Company v European Commission.
Regarding Limb 1 of the test, the Tribunal found that a significant and ongoing disparity existed between the prices charged for services in the App Store and the actual costs of those services during the claim period, indicating that the commission was excessive. Concerning Limb 2, the Tribunal determined that the commission was inherently unfair and unjust when compared to alternatives such as Steam, the Microsoft Store, and the Epic Games Store.
Apple justified its actions by claiming that: (a) it is objectively necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and that the conduct is proportionate to that goal; and (b) the exclusionary effects of the conduct are outweighed by efficiency gains that also benefit consumers. Apple’s stated legitimate objectives included: (i) improving safety, security, and privacy for users; (ii) enhancing user performance; (iii) differentiating iOS devices and services and promoting competition based on merit; and (iv) maintaining an efficient system for collecting fees for the commission.
The argument about efficiencies at (b) was rejected because the contested conduct eliminates effective competition in the relevant markets. The argument about objective necessity at (a) was also rejected because the relevant restrictions were not deemed necessary to deliver the claimed benefits to users and, additionally, were not proportionate to the goal of providing those benefits. Therefore, Apple failed in both of its attempts to justify its conduct.
The overcharge developers face for iOS app distribution services is the difference between a 17.5% commission and the actual rate Apple charges. Similarly, the overcharge related to iOS in-app payment services is the difference between a 10% commission and the amount Apple charges.
The rate at which developers transfer the overcharge to iOS device users is 50%. The Class Representative can claim damages equal to the total of these passed-over overcharges and is also entitled to simple interest on these damages at an 8% rate.
