Judgment of the Tribunal on two applications. The first, made by the Proposed Class Representative (“Dr Kent”), is for a Collective Proceedings Order (“CPO”) within the meaning of section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA”) (the “CPO Application”). The case concerns a claim that the proposed Defendants, Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Limited (together, "Apple"), abused their dominant position in the market for the distribution of individual software applications ("apps") and the associated payment processing market contrary to section 18 CA and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by: (i) imposing restrictions on app developers to force them to distribute iOS apps exclusively via Apple's proprietary system; and (ii) charging excessive and unfair prices in the form of the commission charged on transactions, ("the Unfair Pricing Abuse claim"). The claim is brought on an opt-out basis. Apple did not oppose the CPO Application.
The second application, made by Apple, was a cross-application (i) to strike out the Unfair Pricing Abuse claim pursuant to Rule 41 (1) (b) of The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (“the Rules”) on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for making it and/or (ii) for summary judgment to dismiss the Unfair Pricing Abuse claim pursuant to Rule 43 (1) (a) of the Rules on the basis that it has no real prospect of success.
The Tribunal decided that Dr Kent's application for a CPO should succeed and Apple's cross-application to strike out and/or summarily dismiss the Unfair Pricing Abuse claim must fail.
