Dr. Sean Ennis has successfully obtained an opt-out collective proceedings order against Apple, with his case now certified for a class action. Dr. Ennis, supported by legal experts Daniel Carall-Green and Victoria Green, alongside Paul Stanley KC of Essex Court Chambers, argues that Apple has unfairly imposed exorbitant commission fees on app developers using the App Store, harming their business interests.
At the certification stage, Apple attempted to block the class action by claiming that Dr. Ennis’s case was fraught with conflicts of interest among class members. Apple highlighted that the central argument of unfairness in the case rested on the fact that Apple applied its commission to some apps but not all. Apple suggested that in a counterfactual scenario, if the court ruled against its commission practices, the company would simply extend the commission fees to apps that are currently free of charge. According to Apple, this would create a conflict of interest between developers whose apps are subject to commission and those whose apps currently avoid such fees.
The Tribunal, however, rejected Apple’s position, ruling that the issue of potential conflicts of interest should be evaluated based on the counterfactual Dr. Ennis had proposed, which did not involve redistributing fees. The Tribunal emphasized that the role of the class representative is to serve the collective interests of the group as a whole, not to cater to the diverse positions of individual class members. The ruling underscores the class representative’s duty to pursue the collective claim with integrity, despite variations in individual circumstances.
Apple further argued that the class members themselves had differing interests in the outcome of the case. Apple claimed some developers would stand to receive greater compensation, while others might receive less or no compensation. Additionally, Apple pointed out that some class members may have passed on a larger portion of their losses to consumers, while others would have passed on less. Apple also raised concerns that certain defense arguments—such as the claims falling outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction—could disproportionately impact some members of the class. Apple contended that these differences were substantial enough to justify the rejection of the collective action.
The Tribunal again dismissed Apple’s claims, ruling that the differences among class members were not indicative of conflicts of interest. The Tribunal recognized that variations in claims are natural in class action lawsuits, but these differences do not automatically create conflicts. It further clarified that the class representative’s role changes depending on the stage of the case. Before the distribution of damages, the class representative is tasked with maximizing the total amount of damages for the benefit of the group as a whole. Once the damages are determined, however, individual class members would compete for a portion of those damages. According to the Tribunal, this competition does not create a conflict of interest for the class representative, similar to how a trustee of a discretionary trust would distribute assets to competing beneficiaries without facing a conflict.
With the Tribunal’s decision, Dr. Ennis’s class action against Apple will proceed, despite the company’s objections. The ruling highlights the Tribunal’s recognition of the class representative’s duty to prioritize the group’s collective interests and clarifies that differences among class members do not disqualify a case from being pursued as a collective action. This decision paves the way for further scrutiny of Apple’s practices in relation to app developers and may set a precedent for future class actions in the tech industry.
