Summary

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that Apple abused its market power by charging excessive App Store commissions (up to 30%) between October 2015 and end of 2020. The ruling rejected Apple’s arguments that Android alternatives limited its monopoly and that fees were justified by security/privacy. Damages trial scheduled; Apple plans to appeal.

Key Points

  • CAT found Apple had a monopoly over iOS app distribution and in-app payments
  • Excessive and unfair prices charged October 2015–end of 2020; up to 30% commission
  • Apple’s “Android as alternative” argument explicitly rejected by the Tribunal
  • Apple’s “security and privacy justification” for rules and fees also rejected
  • Class action filed in 2021 by Dr. Rachael Kent, King’s College London; seeks up to £1.5 billion
  • App Store Small Business Program (launched end of 2020) reduced commission to 15% for <$1M/year developers — used as the end date for the damages window
  • Apple will appeal; damages trial scheduled for November 2025

Newsletter Angles

  • The monopoly logic: Apple’s argument that a competitive ecosystem (Android) constrains its behavior was rejected. The Tribunal ruled that iOS users and developers are captive to iOS — the lock-in is the monopoly. This is a significant legal precedent.
  • Security/privacy as competitive moat: Apple has long argued its closed ecosystem serves user safety. Courts are increasingly skeptical that this justifies exclusionary pricing.
  • The $1.5B number is relatively small for Apple — the more important question is whether UK precedent feeds into EU and US cases.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

Quotes

“Apple had a monopoly over iOS app distribution and in-app payments.”

Notes

Source is MacRumors — tech news, generally reliable on Apple matters. Covers UK ruling only; does not connect to parallel EU or US proceedings. Damages have not yet been determined — figures pending trial.