Apple–Amazon claim: UK tribunal gives a conditional green light

A procedural decision with conditions attached

On 28 September 2026, the Competition Appeal Tribunal issued its Apple–Amazon certification judgment, [2026] CAT 75, as described by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer The development concerns permission for a collective case to proceed. A certification judgment must not be presented as a judgment establishing that the companies broke competition rules.

The tribunal said the On-Amazon claim could be certified on an opt-out basis if the required funding and remuneration amendments were made. Competition Appeal Tribunal The conditional wording is essential. A reader needs to know that the route forward depends on those amendments, rather than being told that the entire proposed case has received an unconditional approval.

The tribunal refused certification of the Off-Amazon claim, but did not strike it out or summarily dismiss it. Competition Appeal Tribunal Those outcomes should not be collapsed into one phrase. Refusing collective certification and dismissing the underlying claim are different procedural descriptions, and the tribunal’s account preserves that distinction.

For a business briefing, it would be useful to track the On-Amazon and Off-Amazon parts separately. A headline about the whole case can conceal the different results. The report should identify what could move forward, what was refused certification and what conditions remain relevant before discussing the commercial significance.

Funding and remuneration are part of the ruling

The tribunal capped Justin Le Patourel’s future remuneration at £170 per hour and £750 per day. Competition Appeal Tribunal These limits concern remuneration within the proceedings. They are not consumer compensation amounts, charges imposed on the companies or a measure of the alleged marketplace harm.

Their role in the account is to make the conditional nature of the procedural decision concrete. Readers do not need to infer that all administrative matters were resolved simply because one part of the claim obtained a route towards certification. The conditions form part of what the tribunal decided.

A careful case note should therefore separate the financing and remuneration requirements from the substance of the competition allegations. Meeting a procedural condition would not, by itself, establish the alleged conduct. Conversely, discussing those conditions should not obscure that the On-Amazon part received a different certification assessment from the Off-Amazon part.

Estimated damages and a proposed class need separate labels

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer reports estimated damages of £289-306 million for the surviving On-Amazon claim. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer That range is an estimate for that part of the case. It is not an award, and it should not be presented as an amount that Apple or Amazon has been ordered to pay.

The tribunal found the On-Amazon claim supported by a sufficiently developed methodology and preliminary economic evidence, according to the same analysis. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer The context remains certification. This assessment should not be enlarged into a statement that the alleged harm or the estimated damages have been proved at a merits hearing.

Investing.com describes the proposed case as representing an estimated 28.9 million UK consumers who bought Apple or Beats products during the specified purchase period. Investing.com That estimate describes the proposed case, including the broader claim. It must not be relabelled as the number of certified On-Amazon purchasers.

Apple and Amazon deny that their agreements were unlawful, and the tribunal made no ruling on the merits of those allegations, Investing.com reports. Investing.com Keeping this denial and the absence of a merits ruling visible is necessary when discussing the commercial implications. Neither a class estimate nor a damages estimate substitutes for such a ruling.

A useful marketplace comparison for Algerian readers

For Algerian e-commerce readers, the case offers a way to examine questions about reseller access and marketplace competition. Its direct legal setting remains the UK proceeding. The supplied facts do not establish a corresponding Algerian claim, a local compensation route or a finding that a particular Algerian marketplace arrangement is unlawful.

A suggested internal review would distinguish the marketplace channel from sales outside it, identify which agreements need examination and ask what evidence would be required to support an assessment of their effects. Those are analytical recommendations prompted by the split in the case, rather than additional claims about the underlying agreements.

The decision’s practical lesson is the importance of precision about scope and status. Track the conditions, keep the two claim components separate and leave the merits open. That produces a more useful business comparison than treating a conditional procedural ruling as a completed victory for consumers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources & Further Reading

• Competition Appeal Tribunal
• Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
• Investing.com
• Justin Le Patourel secures conditional certification of collective claim against Apple and Amazon — Hausfeld