EU court empowers representative actions against Apple App Store commissions

The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a landmark ruling on December 2, 2025, establishing that any Dutch court with substantive jurisdiction can hear representative actions against Apple's App Store commission practices for all users who purchased apps through the platform's Netherlands storefront. The Grand Chamber judgment addresses jurisdictional questions arising from collective antitrust claims filed by two Dutch foundations against Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Inc.

The case stems from representative actions brought by Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims before the Amsterdam District Court. According to the court documents, these foundations alleged that Apple abuses its dominant position by charging excessive commission rates of 30% on app purchases and digital in-app products sold through the App Store NL. The foundations argued this conduct violates Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Apple challenged the Amsterdam court's jurisdiction, contending the alleged harmful events did not occur in Amsterdam and the court could only claim jurisdiction over users who made purchases specifically within that city. The referring court requested clarification from the European Court of Justice on how to determine territorial jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 when dealing with representative actions involving unidentified but identifiable consumers.

The European Court of Justice ruled that virtual spaces operated by online platforms can correspond to entire national territories for jurisdictional purposes. According to paragraph 62 of the judgment, the App Store NL targets the Netherlands market specifically, uses Dutch language for app sales, and offers apps created specially for that market. This design allows courts to consider the virtual space as corresponding to the entire territory of the Netherlands, meaning damage can occur throughout that territory regardless of users' physical locations during purchases.

The court distinguished this case from previous litigation involving identified victims. Under Netherlands law, foundations bringing representative actions exercise their own right to defend collective interests of strictly defined groups containing unidentified but identifiable persons. These groups must be determined precisely enough to enable interested persons to express positions on proceedings and potentially receive compensation. The Netherlands government stated at the hearing that outcomes of such representative actions bind persons established in the Netherlands who belong to the group and have not expressed intention to refrain from participating.

Judge Koen Lenaerts presided over the Grand Chamber, which included Vice-President Tony von Danwitz and Judges Franco Biltgen, Ingrida Jarukaitis, Maria Luisa Arastey Sahún, Irmantas Ziemele, and others. Advocate General Maciej Campos Sánchez-Bordona submitted observations before the court's decision. The hearing occurred on December 10, 2024, with written observations submitted by the foundations, Apple, and governments of the Netherlands and Portugal, as well as the European Commission.

The ruling establishes that courts cannot be required to identify precise places where damage occurred for each individual victim in representative actions when those victims remain unidentified at the time of jurisdictional determination. According to paragraph 66, this approach aligns with objectives of proximity, predictability, and sound administration of justice outlined in Regulation No 1215/2012.

Apple operates the App Store as an online sales platform systematically installed on devices running the iOS operating system since 2009. Apps purchased through the platform can be free or paid, with prices varying by country. Developers must enter agreements with Apple Inc to sell apps on the App Store, which remains the exclusive distribution channel for iOS applications. Payment typically occurs through the App Store payment system, with Apple deducting 15% or 30% commission depending on circumstances before transferring remaining amounts to developers.

Users must create Apple IDs to access the App Store. When users indicate the Netherlands as their country or region, they access the App Store NL by default. The Amsterdam District Court previously found in an August 16, 2023 interlocutory judgment that most users purchasing from the App Store NL reside in the Netherlands and use Netherlands bank accounts for payments.

The European court emphasized that technical complexity of competition law cases militates toward jurisdictional centralization. According to paragraph 74, bringing actions for damages requires complex factual and economic analysis, making grouping of individual claims more efficient for both injured persons and courts hearing cases. The ruling permits application of national rules aimed at ensuring such centralization when representative actions are brought by qualified entities before several courts.

This decision follows established case law on determining jurisdiction in competition cases. The court previously ruled in the July 5, 2018 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines judgment that courts within markets affected by anticompetitive conduct have jurisdiction based on the place where damage occurred. That approach aligns international jurisdiction with objectives of proximity and predictability.

The Amsterdam District Court found it had international jurisdiction regarding alleged Article 102 violations based on the place of the causal event. The court determined that Apple Distribution International acted as exclusive distributor and commission agent for apps in the App Store NL, with the platform specifically aimed at the Netherlands market using Dutch language. However, the referring court sought guidance on which specific Dutch courts among the 11 arrondissementen would have territorial jurisdiction, noting that fragmented jurisdiction could undermine procedural economy and sound administration of justice.

The European court rejected Apple's argument that inability to determine damage location for each victim means Article 7(2) does not apply. According to paragraph 67, the place where damage occurred corresponds to a well-defined geographical area—the whole territory to which the affected market belongs. This differs from situations where damage location proves impossible to identify, which would justify applying general jurisdiction based on defendant's domicile under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

The ruling affects how Dutch courts handle antitrust violations involving digital platforms. The Rotterdam District Court confirmed on June 16, 2025 that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions on dating app providers, maintaining penalties totaling €50 million. That case addressed mandatory use of Apple's payment system and prohibition of external payment references.

Representative actions for competition law violations have gained prominence across multiple jurisdictions. Privacy company Proton joined an antitrust challenge against Apple's App Store policies in June 2025, while Apple faces federal trial after courts denied its motion to dismiss Department of Justice allegations of smartphone market monopolization. A US District Judge ruled on June 30, 2025 that government allegations against Apple are sufficient to proceed to trial.

The European Commission previously addressed similar conduct through decisions in the Spotify case, imposing a €1.8 billion fine on Apple for App Store practices restricting music streaming competition. The tribunal cited these decisions as relevant context in the UK tribunal ruling that Apple abused dominant position in app markets, delivered on October 23, 2025.

The December 2 judgment confirms that Article 7(2) confers both international and territorial jurisdiction directly and immediately, as established in the July 15, 2021 Volvo judgment. Each court with substantive jurisdiction to examine representative actions has the same relationship of proximity with the subject matter of those actions when courts must assess alleged damage in relation to strictly defined groups consisting of unidentified but identifiable users who suffered the same type of damage from anticompetitive conduct implemented throughout the territory.

Predictability requirements are satisfied because entities implementing anticompetitive conduct can reasonably expect representative actions for damages to be brought before any court having substantive jurisdiction when online platforms target specific national markets. According to paragraph 72, Apple Distribution International could foresee that the App Store NL's specific targeting of the Netherlands market would expose it to representative actions before Netherlands courts with substantive jurisdiction.

Sound administration of justice benefits from allowing efficient procedural management by a single court with substantive jurisdiction seized by entities qualified to defend collective interests. The approach prevents risk of divergent decisions while enabling proper taking and evaluation of evidence. Digital platform operators face complex factual and economic analysis requirements in competition law cases, making centralized jurisdiction particularly valuable.

The court did not address whether the Amsterdam court could derive jurisdiction from the event giving rise to damage, focusing instead on the place where damage occurred. That court previously found it had international jurisdiction regarding Article 102 violations based on causal events occurring in the Netherlands, but the European court's ruling on damage location made examination of alternative jurisdictional grounds unnecessary.

The case returns to the Amsterdam District Court for factual verifications and further proceedings. The referring court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear representative actions for all users who purchased apps on the App Store NL based on the place where damage occurred. The December 20, 2023 reference reached the European Court on January 18, 2024.

Regulation No 1215/2012 establishes that persons domiciled in Member States can be sued in courts of other Member States only by virtue of special jurisdiction rules set out in Sections 2 through 7 of Chapter II. Article 7(2) allows jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict in courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. The regulation aims to make common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction by defining legal persons' domicile autonomously.

Alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on close connection between courts and actions facilitate sound administration of justice. According to recital 16, close connections ensure legal certainty and prevent defendants from being sued in courts they could not reasonably foresee. This proves particularly important in disputes concerning non-contractual obligations arising from violations of privacy and personality rights.

The European court's interpretation maintains consistency with objectives pursued by Regulation No 1215/2012. Courts having substantive jurisdiction to examine representative actions can identify jurisdiction for those actions, both internationally and territorially, based on where damage occurred within Member States. Any such court has international and territorial jurisdiction to hear actions in their entirety regarding all users who purchased digital products on platforms aimed at all users established in that State.

Timeline

• August 24, 2021: Dutch ACM issues initial order requiring Apple to adjust App Store conditions for dating apps
• August 1, 2024: Apple updates App Store review guidelines, clarifying rules for developers
• August 12, 2024: Apple revises App Store rules for EU, expanding external purchase links
• October 7, 2024: Google ordered to open Android App Store in antitrust ruling
• October 23, 2025: UK tribunal rules Apple abused dominant position in app markets
• March 30, 2025: French competition authority fines Apple €150 million for App Tracking Transparency practices
• June 16, 2025: Dutch court confirms Apple's antitrust violation in dating apps case
• June 30, 2025: Apple faces trial as federal court denies motion to dismiss antitrust lawsuit
• July 1, 2025: Privacy company Proton joins antitrust challenge against Apple's App Store policies
• August 28, 2025: X Corp. and xAI file billion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI
• November 13, 2025: Apple tightens App Store age controls and data sharing disclosure
• December 2, 2025: EU Court of Justice delivers judgment on jurisdiction in representative actions against Apple
• December 20, 2023: Amsterdam District Court refers questions to European Court of Justice
• January 18, 2024: Reference received at European Court of Justice
• December 10, 2024: Hearing held before European Court of Justice Grand Chamber

Summary

Who: The Court of Justice of the European Union Grand Chamber ruled on a jurisdictional dispute between two Dutch foundations (Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims) and Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Inc.

What: The court established that any Dutch court with substantive jurisdiction can hear representative actions against Apple's App Store commission practices for all users throughout the Netherlands who purchased apps through the App Store NL, based on the place where damage occurred under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

When: The judgment was delivered on December 2, 2025, following a reference made by the Amsterdam District Court on December 20, 2023 and received by the European court on January 18, 2024, with hearing held on December 10, 2024.

Where: The ruling applies to the Netherlands market, specifically addressing jurisdiction for representative actions involving the App Store NL platform that targets Dutch users with Dutch language interface and apps created specially for that market.

Why: The court ruled this way to ensure effective procedural management, prevent fragmented jurisdiction across multiple courts, avoid risk of divergent decisions, and maintain consistency with objectives of proximity, predictability and sound administration of justice while enabling collective redress for competition law violations affecting unidentified but identifiable consumers.