// 9TO5MAC — MOBILE & WEB
Apple and Amazon face renewed UK antitrust lawsuit
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.
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.
“Our overall impression was that Prof Riefa was extremely reliant on her legaladvisers. We were not convinced that she had properly understood thearrangements into which the PCR had entered on behalf of the Proposed ClassMembers, and we were concerned about her ability to protect the interests ofthe class robustly and independently.”
“Our key concern in this case is that Prof Riefa has not demonstrated sufficientindependence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests ofthe 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.