Apple faces £1.5B UK lawsuit over App Store monopoly practices

A trial opening this week in London will ask whether Apple has weaponized its control of the App Store to lock out competitors and extract billions from British consumers. The case, brought by Rachael Kent, a digital economy lecturer at Kings College London, and the law firm Hausfeld & Co, alleges that Apple violated both European and UK competition law by refusing to allow any rival app stores on iPhones and iPads. The complaint was filed in May 2021, but the legal machinery has been grinding ever since. Now, at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, a seven-week trial will examine whether Apple's practices amount to abuse of a dominant market position—and if so, how much the company owes.

The core accusation is straightforward: Apple charges a 30 percent commission on most digital purchases made through its App Store, and because it bars alternative marketplaces from iOS devices, users have no choice but to pay it. Kent estimates that roughly 20 million Apple customers in the UK may have been overcharged as a result. The lawsuit seeks £1.5 billion in damages—roughly $1.8 billion—on behalf of anyone who bought an app or subscription through the British App Store between October 1, 2015, and November 15, 2024. Under British law, class actions automatically include all potentially affected parties unless they actively opt out, which means the pool of claimants is enormous.

The 30 percent surcharge does not apply uniformly. Apps offering physical goods—Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and similar delivery services—fall outside Apple's commission structure. But for digital products and services, the fee is nearly universal. Dating apps like Tinder, streaming subscriptions, and in-app purchases all trigger it. Kent points out that this commission represents a hidden cost borne by ordinary consumers, who often have no idea they are paying a premium simply because Apple has made itself the only legal gateway to software on its own devices.

Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as meritless. In a statement, the company noted that 85 percent of apps on the App Store are free, suggesting that most users never encounter the commission at all. It also argues that its 30 percent rate is standard across the digital marketplace industry and that the App Store has delivered substantial benefits to the UK's innovation economy. The company frames itself as a curator and protector, not a gatekeeper extracting rents. But this defense rings hollow to regulators and plaintiffs who see a company using its market dominance to prevent competition.

The timing of the trial reflects a broader reckoning with Apple's power. Last June, the European Commission formally accused Apple of breaching digital competition rules by preventing developers from steering customers toward alternative payment channels. That pressure led Apple to make a significant concession: as of August, users in the European Union can now delete the App Store and download competing app marketplaces. The company did not volunteer this change. It was forced. Kent argues that this pattern—Apple resisting until regulators intervene—demonstrates why collective lawsuits matter. "They're responding to these investigations and also being told what to do," she said. "I don't think they're going to do it voluntarily, which I think is why it's really important to bring these collective actions."

Apple faces other legal challenges on similar grounds. A separate complaint worth £785 million relates to rates charged to app developers. Investigations and complaints have multiplied globally in recent years, each one chipping away at the company's ability to operate its App Store as a closed ecosystem. The UK trial is one more front in a widening war over whether tech giants can use their platforms to exclude rivals and capture value that might otherwise flow to consumers and developers. The verdict in London could set a precedent not just for Britain but for how courts elsewhere view Apple's business model.