Key takeaways from the historic Dr. Kent vs Apple judgment

On 23 October 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal unanimously ruled in favour of Dr Rachael Kent, who led the collective proceedings case on behalf of approximately 36 million iPhone and iPad users in the U.K. against Apple for its App Store practices.

The case centred on allegations that Apple abused its dominant position, infringing Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”) and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (the “TFEU”) (prior to 31 December 2020), by imposing exclusionary practices regarding alternative app stores and in-app payment services, and by charging excessive and unfair prices in the form of its up to 30% commission on app purchases, subscriptions, and in-app transactions on digital content within the App Store.

The Tribunal agreed with all of Dr Kent’s headline claims. As a result, Apple is liable for around £1.5 billion in compensatory damages and interest owed to U.K. iPhone and iPad users within the class.

Central issues and key findings

Market definition and dominance: The Tribunal accepted Dr Kent’s definition of the relevant markets as the market for the distribution of iOS apps and the market for iOS in-app payment services (together, “Relevant Markets”). The Tribunal rejected Apple’s submission that it operated within a broader “system” market with competition from entities such as Google, as well as its submission that a wider “app transactions” market existed. The Tribunal found that Apple held a dominant position in both Relevant Markets throughout the Claim Period.

Exclusionary abuse: The Tribunal agreed with Dr Kent that Apple had infringed Chapter II/Article 102 by:

1. Through its practices, completely foreclosing entry to the Relevant Markets by alternative app stores and alternative in-app payment systems providers; and 

2. tying Apple’s own in-app payment system to the App Store.

Objective justification. Apple failed in its arguments that there was an objective necessity defence and an efficiencies defence to its abuse of dominance in respect of the exclusionary abuses.

Excessive pricing: The Tribunal found that Apple abused its dominant position by charging excessive (under the Limb 1 analysis) and unfair (under Limb 2 analysis by reference to it being unfair in itself and by reference to comparators) prices by its use of an up to 30% commission on every purchase of digital content made through the App Store.

1. Excessiveness limb (Limb 1): The Tribunal accepted that Mr Dudney’s calculations of the App Store’s profitability and resulting profitability metrics were reasonably reliable estimates, finding that they showed a significant and persistent difference between the price of services provided and the costs of those services over the Claim Period.

2. Unfairness limb (Limb 2): The Tribunal found that the commission was unfair both vis-à-vis in itself, and vis-à-vis comparators. The Tribunal noted that, although Apple does provide value to developers through the App Store, it was not satisfied that the level of these benefits could in itself reasonably be taken to explain the very high profitability of the App Store. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the comparators put forward by Mr Holt provided some indication of what a reasonable benchmark for app distribution commission might be if it had been set in conditions of workable competition. 

Footnotes

[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/dr-rachael-kent-wins-historic-case-against-apple-in-1.5-billion-collective-action