UK Tribunal Allows Part of Consumer Lawsuit Against Apple and Amazon to Proceed

Tribunal Allows Marketplace Claims to Proceed

The tribunal determined that the portion of the lawsuit focusing on Apple products sold through Amazon’s marketplace is plausible, credible and grounded in the facts, according to Judge Kelyn Bacon. The claimant, Justin Le Patourel, estimates that this segment of the case could be valued between £289 million and £306 million, a figure that includes interest.

Le Patourel replaced the original proposed representative, consumer law academic Christine Riefa, after the tribunal previously rejected a similar lawsuit due to concerns regarding funding and the class representative. While Le Patourel’s team welcomed the recent ruling, a spokesperson noted disappointment that the tribunal did not certify the entire scope of the original claim.

Court Rejects Claims Against Direct Sales

The tribunal declined to allow claims concerning Apple products purchased directly from Apple stores or from other retailers. Judge Bacon characterized these broader allegations as resting on a complex and speculative theory of harm. The court concluded that, at this stage, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the agreement between Apple and Amazon had a measurable impact on pricing outside of the Amazon marketplace.

Corporate Responses to the Competition Allegations

Both companies continue to deny the allegations of anticompetitive conduct. An Apple spokesperson stated that the company strongly disagrees with the claims, maintaining that the 2018 agreement with Amazon was established specifically to address the presence of counterfeit products on the retail platform.

Amazon expressed satisfaction that the tribunal dismissed the wider parts of the lawsuit, while characterizing the remaining claim regarding marketplace sales as without merit. An Amazon spokesperson stated, We’re confident that this will become clear throughout the process.

Legal Basis for the Price Inflation Claims

The tribunal identified a realistic basis for the argument that limiting which resellers could offer specific brands on Amazon’s platform effectively reduced competition. By narrowing the pool of sellers, the lawsuit contends that the agreement allowed for the inflation of consumer prices. This logic forms the core of the case that will now move forward, focusing exclusively on the dynamics within the Amazon UK marketplace.