2 December 2025 – Luxembourg / Amsterdam — The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that Dutch courts are competent to hear two representative actions accusing Apple of anticompetitive practices in the operation of its App Store aimed at the Netherlands market. The decision marks a significant development for cross-border digital platform cases and strengthens the ability of consumer organisations to bring collective redress claims within the EU.
Foundations Claim Excessive Commissions and Abuse of Dominance
Two Dutch foundations — Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims — filed actions before the District Court of Amsterdam arguing that Apple has abused its dominant position in the distribution of iOS apps. Both organisations represent the collective interests of millions of Dutch iPhone and iPad users who have purchased paid apps developed by third-party developers on the App Store NL.
According to the claimants, Apple’s mandatory commission of 15% to 30% on app sales is excessive and results in artificially inflated prices for Dutch users, causing widespread consumer harm. The foundations argue that the commission structure, combined with Apple’s control over app distribution on iOS devices, amounts to an unlawful restriction of competition.
Apple Challenged Jurisdiction, Arguing No Harm Occurred in the Netherlands
Apple disputed the Dutch court’s jurisdiction, contending that the “harmful event” did not occur in the Netherlands. The company argued that only purchases made in Amsterdam — not countrywide — could confer jurisdiction on the Amsterdam District Court.
The Dutch court referred the issue to the CJEU, asking whether the “place where the harmful event occurred” for App Store purchases could be understood as the entire Netherlands.
CJEU: The App Store NL Is a Market-Specific Virtual Space
In today’s judgment, the Court held that the App Store NL is specifically designed and targeted at the Netherlands market, offering apps in Dutch and directing users with a Dutch-registered Apple ID to the Dutch storefront by default. The Court stressed that, even though app purchases happen in a virtual environment, the harm materialises in the Netherlands because that is the market for which the platform is tailored.
As a result, any Dutch court with substantive jurisdiction may adjudicate the collective claims — not only courts in Amsterdam, and not only for users physically located in the Netherlands at the time of purchase.
A Boost for Cross-Border Tech Enforcement and Predictability
The Court emphasised that its interpretation promotes proximity, predictability, and the sound administration of justice. Given Apple’s clear targeting of the Dutch market, it is foreseeable that claims relating to alleged harm suffered by Dutch users should be brought before Dutch courts.
The decision aligns with the EU’s broader push to ensure that digital platforms operating across borders cannot evade jurisdiction simply because harmful conduct occurs in “virtual spaces”.
The case will now return to the District Court of Amsterdam, which must assess the substance of the antitrust allegations. While today’s ruling does not address whether Apple violated EU competition law, it clears the procedural path for the claims to proceed in the Netherlands.
Source: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-12/cp250149en.pdf
