A UK court has allowed a renewed antitrust lawsuit to be filed against Apple and Amazon, over allegations that the companies restricted competition for Apple and Beats products sold on Amazon. Here are the details.
A little context
In 2023, Apple and Amazon were hit with a proposed class action in the United Kingdom over a 2018 settlement that allegedly limited third-party sellers who could offer Apple and Beats products through Amazon’s marketplace, reducing competition and, as a result, driving up prices for consumers.
It’s worth noting that the UK wasn’t the only market where the deal attracted attention. Apple and Amazon have faced antitrust investigations and legal challenges over similar restrictions on retailers 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 raising 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 case was being funded and Riefa’s ability to independently protect the class’s interests.
The court took issue in particular with the fact that, under the funding agreement, Asertis (which was funding the litigation in exchange for a success fee) could potentially have been compensated by any damages before consumers received anything. The court said the settlement might even have resulted in the class not receiving any damages.
From the decision:
“Our overall impression was that Professor Riefa was extremely dependent on her lawyer
advisors. We were not convinced that he understood the
agreements entered into by PCR on behalf of the proposed Class
Members, and we were concerned about its ability to protect the interests of
the class in a robust and independent way”.
AND
“Our main concern in this case is that Professor Riefa has not demonstrated enough
independence or robustness so as to act fairly and adequately in the interests of
the class.”
In its conclusion, the court stated that a class representative cannot be “merely a point person” for proceedings conducted by his or her lawyers and that he or she should “act as an independent counsel for the class.”
The request was later resubmitted by a proposed new class representative, Justin Le Patourel, which brings us to today.
UK court allows part of case to proceed
As reported by ReutersBritain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal today allowed part of the lawsuit to proceed, narrowing the case to claims involving Apple products purchased through Amazon’s marketplace.
From Reuters:
The court accepted the claims relating to Apple products purchased through the Amazon marketplace, but rejected those relating to those purchased directly from Apple and other retailers.
AND
Judge Kelyn Bacon said the claims related to purchases on Amazon’s marketplace were “plausible, credible and factually based,” but rejected broader claims related to other retailers because they were based on a “complex and speculative theory of harm.”
Reuters says the part of the case now allowed to proceed could be worth between £289m and £306m, including interest.
Commenting on the decision, Apple said Reuters that its deal with Amazon was intended to curb the sale of counterfeit products and said it “strongly” disagreed with the lawsuit.
Amazon, in turn, said it is confident that the remaining claim will prove “meritless” as the legal process progresses.
Finally, Reuters says a spokesperson for Le Patourel “welcomed the ruling, but said it was disappointing that parts of the request had not been certified”.
Must read Reuters‘ full report on today’s decision, follow this link.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Moreover.
