London, October 23, 2025 —The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that Apple abused its dominant position in the markets for iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payment services, following a 28-day trial of the collective claim brought by Dr Rachael Kent on behalf of around 36 million iPhone and iPad users.
Market Definition and Dominance
The Tribunal accepted the Class Representative’s definition of two distinct markets — one for iOS app distribution services and another for iOS in-app payment services. It found that Apple enjoys “near absolute market power” in both, citing the App Store’s monopoly position and contractual restrictions that create “very high barriers to entry.”
Apple’s arguments that competition in the devices market or bargaining power from major developers constrained its dominance were rejected as insufficient.
Exclusionary Conduct
The Tribunal held that Apple infringed Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU by foreclosing competition through exclusive dealing and tying. Developers can only distribute apps via the App Store and must use Apple’s in-app payment system.
Apple’s claim that these restrictions reflected competition on the merits in the devices market was dismissed, with the Tribunal concluding that Apple “is not competing at all” in the relevant markets. The Tribunal also rejected Apple’s reliance on Magill-style IP protection, finding that its practices did not warrant immunity from competition scrutiny.
Excessive Pricing
Apple was found to have charged excessive and unfair commissions of 30% on both app distribution and in-app payments. Applying the United Brands test, the Tribunal concluded that Apple’s prices significantly exceeded cost levels and were unfair both in themselves and relative to comparable platforms such as Steam, the Microsoft Store, and the Epic Games Store.
Justifications Rejected
Apple argued that its conduct was justified by legitimate objectives — user privacy, security, performance, and efficiency — and claimed consumer benefits outweighed any exclusionary effects. The Tribunal rejected both lines of defence, finding the restrictions neither necessary nor proportionate to those aims and that any efficiencies could not outweigh the elimination of competition.
Damages and Overcharge
The Tribunal assessed the competitive benchmark commission rates at 17.5% for app distribution and 10% for in-app payments. Developers suffered overcharges equal to the difference between those benchmarks and Apple’s actual rates. Half of that overcharge was found to have been passed on to iOS users. Damages will include simple interest at 8%.
Next Steps
The Tribunal will convene a hearing on the first convenient date after November 3 to hear submissions on all consequential matters, including costs, any applications for permission to appeal and the process for resolving any questions relating to the calculation of quantum.
The case is 1403/7/7/21 Dr Rachael Kent v Apple Inc and Apple Distribution International before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Class representative’s press release: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-gb/news/cat-rules-unanimously-in-favour-of-dr-kent-against-apple-s-app-store-and-consumers-and-businesses-are-owed-approx-15-billion
