A UK tribunal has allowed part of a renewed antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Amazon to move forward, over allegations that the companies restricted competition for Apple and Beats products sold on Amazon. Here are the details.
A bit of context
Back in 2023, Apple and Amazon were hit with a proposed UK class action over a 2018 agreement that allegedly restricted which third-party sellers could offer Apple and Beats products through Amazon’s marketplace, reducing competition and, as a result, driving up prices for consumers.
It is worth noting that the UK was not the only market where the agreement drew scrutiny. Apple and Amazon have faced antitrust investigations and legal challenges over similar reseller restrictions in countries including Italy, Spain, Germany, and the United States.
In the British lawsuit, a class representative led by consumer law academic Christine Riefa accused the companies of reducing competition and driving up prices for consumers buying Apple and Beats products in the UK.
Last year, however, Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal refused to certify the case, citing concerns about how the lawsuit was being financed and about Riefa’s ability to independently protect the interests of the class.
The court took particular issue with the fact that, under the funding agreement, Asertis (which was financing the litigation in exchange for a success fee) could potentially have been paid out of any damages award before consumers received anything. The tribunal said the arrangement could even have resulted in the class receiving no damages at all.
From the decision:
“Our overall impression was that Prof Riefa was extremely reliant on her legal
advisers. We were not convinced that she had properly understood the
arrangements into which the PCR had entered on behalf of the Proposed Class
Members, and we were concerned about her ability to protect the interests of
the class robustly and independently.”
And
“Our key concern in this case is that Prof Riefa has not demonstrated sufficient
independence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests of
the class.”
In its conclusion, the tribunal said a class representative cannot be “merely a figurehead” for proceedings being conducted by their lawyers, and that they should “act as the independent advocate for the class.”
The claim was later refiled by a new proposed class representative, Justin Le Patourel, which brings us to today.
UK tribunal allows part of lawsuit to proceed
As reported by Reuters, Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal today allowed part of the refiled lawsuit to proceed, while narrowing the case to claims involving Apple products purchased through Amazon’s marketplace.
From Reuters:
The tribunal allowed claims relating to Apple products bought through Amazon’s marketplace to proceed, but rejected one covering those bought directly from Apple and other retailers.
And
Judge Kelyn Bacon said claims relating to Amazon marketplace purchases were “plausible, credible and grounded in the facts”, but rejected wider claims relating to other retailers because they rested on a “complex and speculative theory of harm”.
Reuters says the portion of the lawsuit now allowed to proceed could be worth between £289 million and £306 million, including interest.
Commenting on the decision, Apple told Reuters that its agreement with Amazon was intended to curb the sale of counterfeit products, and maintained that it “strongly” disagrees with the lawsuit.
Amazon, in turn, said it is confident the remaining claim will prove to be “without merit” as the legal process moves forward.
Finally, Reuters says a spokesperson for Le Patourel “welcomed the ruling, but said it was disappointing that parts of the claim were not certified.”
To read Reuters‘ full report on today’s decision, follow this link.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.