Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed part of a revived consumer lawsuit against Apple and Amazon to proceed on Monday, ruling that claims over restricted marketplace competition are plausible and could be worth up to £306 million including interest.
Tribunal Revives Marketplace Claims While Dropping Broader Retailer Allegations
A major UK consumer competition action is moving forward after Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal issued a ruling on Monday regarding marketplace restrictions on Apple products. The three-judge panel permitted allegations concerning Apple products purchased through Amazon’s marketplace to proceed toward trial.
At the same time, the tribunal trimmed the scope of the litigation. Judge Kelyn Bacon rejected broader claims covering items bought directly from Apple’s own stores or through other retail outlets, characterizing that wider scope as resting on a complex and speculative theory of harm.
The surviving portion of the lawsuit focuses on an agreement struck between the two tech giants in 2018. The legal filing alleges that Apple and Amazon agreed to restrict which merchants could offer Apple and Beats-branded goods on Amazon’s UK website, which the claimant argues suppressed competition and drove up prices for shoppers.
Financial Exposure and the Economics of the Surviving Claim
Even with the trimmed scope, the financial stakes remain substantial. According to estimates provided by the claimant, the surviving marketplace portion of the litigation could be worth between £289 million and £306 million, a figure that includes accumulated interest.
In evaluating whether the case deserved to move ahead, the tribunal found that the claims relating to Amazon marketplace purchases met the threshold of being plausible, credible, and grounded in the facts. The judges determined there was a realistic basis to argue that reseller restrictions directly inflated costs for consumers purchasing hardware through the online platform.
Leadership Shift Following Last Year’s Dismissal
The path to a revived hearing was rocky. The tribunal had rejected a nearly identical lawsuit brought by consumer law academic Christine Riefa because of concerns surrounding the proposed class representative and the arrangements made for litigation funding.
To overcome those hurdles, the legal team refiled the claim with a new figurehead. Justin Le Patourel stepped in to replace Riefa as the official proposed representative for affected consumers, clearing the way for the tribunal to certify the narrowed action.
Corporate Responses From Apple and Amazon
Both defendants pushed back against the allegations following the tribunal’s decision, offering starkly different perspectives on their 2018 pact.
“The safety of our customers is our first priority and the risks associated with counterfeit products can be very serious.”
Apple spokesperson, via Reuters
Apple maintained that its primary motivation in reaching the agreement with Amazon was to tackle counterfeit listings and protect buyers from unsafe or misleading imitation devices.
Amazon adopted a sharp tone regarding the surviving allegations, telling reporters that the remaining claim was without merit.