Apple Failed To Cancel Lawsuits Related To UK App Store Commission Fees

Apple's App Store illustration (photo: x @Elyssaar)

JAKARTA - Apple's offer to drop a lawsuit worth nearly $1 billion was rejected on Friday, April 12, where a judge ruled that the company should face charges that it is charging an unfair commission to more than 1,500 UK-based developers for the purchase of applications and other content.

Sean Ennis, a professor of competition law and economist, led the case, which was filed at London's Competition Court (CAT) last year and claims that Apple is charging developers an unfair commission fee of up to 30%.

Ennis' lawyer said the US tech giant abused its dominant position in the app distribution market on iPhones and other Apple devices and demanded compensation.

Apple has faced mounting pressure from regulators in the US and Europe over the costs they charge third-party developers who distribute the app through the App Store. The company says that 85% of developers on their App Store don't pay commissions at all.

In the European Union, the new law has forced Apple to allow users to download apps from alternative sources, including websites and alternative app stores. Meanwhile, in the US, the company made changes to its App Store after a long legal battle with Epic Games, the company behind the "Fortnite".

Apple's attorney, Daniel Piccinin, argued in a January hearing that developers cannot file claims in the UK unless they are charged with purchases made through the UK App Store.

However, Apple's attempt to refuse part of the case was rejected by Judge Andrew Lenon in a written decision last Friday.

Lenon said that Ennis' lawyers have realistic prospects for proving that "the charge of Apple commissions to UK-based app developers in terms of trading on non-UK platforms is indeed a behavior that is being carried out in the UK".

Apple is also facing a separate case of an iPhone battery suspected of being flawed on behalf of about 24 million iPhone users, who were certified last year. The company sued the two cases, which it did not expect to be brought to court before 2025.