The case, Kent v Apple, was brought by Dr Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, who made history as the first female Class Representative in the UK’s collective action regime.
In the class action led by Dr Rachael Kent, the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Apple has abused its dominant position by “imposing exclusionary practices” and charging “excessive and unfair” fees on purchases of apps, app subscriptions and in-app purchases made by UK iPhone and iPad users, resulting in losses of around £1.5 billion over a ten-year period.
The story has already been featured in the BBC, Sky News, Financial Times, Reuters, CNBC, Al Jazeera and The Telegraph.
Dr Rachael Kent is Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education in the Department of Digital Humanities at King’s. Her research focuses on multiple aspects of digital culture and society: digital health and behaviours, technology addiction and digital detoxing, datafication and surveillance, social media and others.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal has found in favour of Dr Kent on all aspects of her claim. The Tribunal concluded that users have been overcharged for buying apps, paying for subscriptions to apps and making in-app purchases of digital content in popular apps such as YouTube, Tinder, Fortnite and Candy Crush and many others. The commission did not apply to apps providing physical goods or services such as purchases from Deliveroo or Uber.
“This is a landmark victory — not only for App Store users, but for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant. The Tribunal has confirmed that Apple has been unlawfully overcharging users for more than ten years – and that up to £1.5 billion should now be returned to UK consumers and businesses. Every in-app purchase, subscription, and paid download was inflated by Apple’s anti-competitive practices. Those unfair fees have added up to billions for the world’s richest company, and less choice and innovation for everyone else. This case proves that the UK’s collective action regime is working. It empowers ordinary people and small businesses to hold even the most powerful corporations to account. Today’s ruling sends a clear message: no company, however wealthy or powerful, is above the law.”
Dr Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education
Typically, 30% of the purchase price for an app, app subscription or in-app purchase goes straight to Apple. This is because Apple requires all app purchases to be routed through its own App Store payment system, allowing Apple to impose its 30% commission. Apple has blocked developers’ ability to offer alternative payment systems, leading to iPhone and iPad users paying more than they would have done otherwise.
The Tribunal found that ‘In our view, [Apple’s] restrictions cannot sensibly be justified as being necessary or proportionate to deliver the benefits which Apple puts forward as flowing from its objective of an integrated and centralised system. On the contrary, the competition which would exist absent the restrictions is in our view much more likely to deliver the benefits that consumers want, in the form and at the price point they want them.’
According to a statement sent to the BBC, Apple ‘strongly disagreed’ with the ruling and intends to appeal.
Any UK user of an iPhone or iPad who purchased paid-for apps, subscriptions or made in-app purchases of digital content within the UK storefront of the App Store at any point since 1 October 2015 is potentially entitled to compensation from Apple. Device users can check their eligibility for compensation by logging into their App Store account and checking their ‘Purchase History’.
The decision paves the way for £1.5 billion in compensation to be returned to nearly 36 million UK consumers and businesses, making this the first collective action of its kind against a global tech giant.
Dr Kent’s action against Apple is the first case brought under the UK’s collective action regime to reach a successful conclusion at trial.
Author: Iryna Rodina