UK trial over Apple's App Store fees seeks $1.83B fine
A four-year-old class action lawsuit filed in the UK again Apple's App Store fees will finally go to trial on Monday, January 13 -- seeking up to 1.5 billion pounds ($1.83 billion) in potential damages.
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal will hear the case.
Claimants in the case, led by digital economy specialist and lecturer at King's College Dr. Rachael Kent, are fighting the up to 30 percent commission Apple collections for in-app purchases (IAP). The lawsuit charges Apple is running its App Store as an illegal monopoly.
The suit says Apple forces developers to pass on the commission costs to consumers in the form of higher app prices. Apple has called the lawsuit "meritless" in court filings.
Kent said in a statement that Apple has "no right" to charge such a significant commission fee -- "particularly when Apple itself is blocking our access to platforms and developers that are able to offer us much better deals."
"Apple achieves this by slapping unjustified charges on its users," she said in her filing, pointing out that global App Store revenues topped $15 billion in 2021. "It would not be able to impose these exorbitant charges if competitor platforms and payment systems were allowed to compete on its devices," the brief noted.
"Apple guards access to the world of apps jealously," Kent said. "This is the behavior of a monopolist, and is unacceptable." The case is believed to bethe first of its kind for a Big Tech firm in the UK.
Apple's rebuttal
In its response, the company said in a statement that "the commission charged by the App Store is very much in the mainstream of those charged by all other digital marketplaces. In fact, 84 percent of apps on the App Store are free, and developers pay Apple nothing."
It went on to note that "for the vast majority of developers who do pay Apple a commission because they are selling a digital good or service, they are eligible for a commission rate of 15 percent." The company introduced that lower rate for developers with annual revenue of less than $1 million in 2021, the same year the court case was originally filed.
The company has further pointed out in its filing that it considers the fees fair. It notes that the commissions cover the cost of the store and services provided to developers such as security, promotion, and the development of digital tools for access.
The crux of the case is that Dr. Kent charges Apple with acting illegally within its App Store, making the case similar to the seemingly never-ending Apple vs Epic saga. That earlier legal battle is currently in limbo, pending a ruling on Apple's appeal to throw out the entire case, based on recent precedents in similar cases.
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal will hear the new case, which is expected to last about seven weeks. Officials, including Apple CFO Kevan Parekh, are expected to testify.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Nothing mentioned in the article from Apple actually hit the complaint head on.
Developers providing 'free' apps not having to pay Apple is irrelevant to the complaint.
Whatever percentage of 'free' apps is available is also irrevelant.
That Apple reduced its commissions for some developers in some circumstances is irrevelant too.
The same arguments were made by Apple in the EU.
That Apple has a de facto monopoly on iDevices (an entire platform where users cannot move in and out without incurring device specific costs and are never informed of the restrictions Apple imposes prior to purchase) through its gatekeeper status is relevant to the complaint as far as I can tell (without having read through the text), and in the EU and other jurisdictions it is clear that that was considered wrong.
We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. It's not clearcut but I'd say in the not too distant future, and irrespective of this case and possible fine, Apple will have third party App Stores in the UK.
There may be political pushback from the US but I doubt it will be successful.
The real gist of this money grab is the UK is about broke. Their credit rating is going down as shown by the ever increasing interest rates on the government bonds they continue to issue which reflects on the credit worthiness of the UK. Higher interest rates are for higher risk.
No one is holding a weapon to the body of any UK developer. They are entirely free to create their own store front and sell directly;y to Apple customers like many other Apple centric developers. I say cut the BS.
They want a free ride where they have zero costs incurred to advertise nationally and internationally along with free distribution of the product around the UK and EU. In addition, another benefit I believe is that Apple collects the use/sales/VAT taxes and remits it to the government.
Trump, in geopolitical terms, is a stop gap. Nothing more. You should be looking beyond his term into what might come after him. That may well see increased scrutiny of Big Tech and especially the people who control it.
Apple, along with all of the other Big Tech players enjoyed 'first mover' status and, until relatively recently at least, fell under the radar of legislators. This is typical of any new technology which has capacity to alter the way we live.
When electric scooters began appearing on our streets and pavements they were simply a curiosity for most people. Fast forward to 2025 and new legislation (local and national) is being pumped out all over the place to regulate what has now become a plague on a global scale.
If anything has a large enough impact on society you can rest assured that legislation to cover it will arrive at some point. Logically, almost always after the fact.
Together with that regulation, governing bodies may well decide to take a closer look at how the main players behaved in the past. Especially if complaints are filed.
All Big Tech has been on the hook for abuses. Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon...
And often for good and clear reasons.
Many of them have been found to have abused their dominant positions and tilted the playing fields in their favour.
In the case of the major digital platforms, you should be able to see that many have operated as de facto monopolies and as a result, terms such as 'Gatekeepers' have emerged. It's why we will probably gradually get another accepted meaning for the term 'monopoly'.
If someone were to take a very deep dive into what has happened over the last ten years we would surely be shocked (are shocked) to see how much some companies have got away with. First mover status often allows you to 'write the rules'. That is until you fall under the microscope.
It was only recently that the true numbers of Apple's 'Google default search' deal came to light. If it weren't for an investigation, those numbers would have remained well hidden. In that case it is the DoJ. In others it is the EU, Japan, South Korea etc.
From that point on it's mostly a case of Big Tech having to adapt to the new rules (often dragging its collective feet and pushing the limits of compliance).
We have even seen the term 'malicious compliance' take on new, tech related, significance.
I don't doubt that there are security and quality assurance benefits to iOS remaining closed, personally I'm not even against it remaining closed. I do, however, feel that Apple's greed here is causing them far more trouble than it is worth and they will ultimately have to open up iOS, all of which could have been avoided had they just looked for a 10% fee over the current 30%.