The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal has delivered a split judgment in the opt-out collective proceedings brought against Apple and Amazon by JLP A&A Class Representative Limited. While granting permission to proceed with claims regarding purchases made directly on the Amazon UK Marketplace (“On-Amazon”), the Tribunal firmly rejected the class representative’s proposed claims concerning purchases made through third-party retail channels (“Off-Amazon”).
The lawsuit stems from 2018 agreements between Apple and Amazon that allegedly restricted competition by excluding unauthorized resellers from the Amazon Store, driving up prices for UK consumers. This filing represents a reconstituted version of a claim originally brought in 2023 under the direction of Prof Christine Riefa. Following the Tribunal’s 2025 decision to refuse certification due to authorization concerns, the claim entity was restructured under sole director Justin Le Patourel. The updated claim covers roughly 28.9 million UK consumers, with preliminary damages estimates for the On-Amazon portion ranging around £289 million to £306 million.
The Tribunal evaluated the proposed economic methodologies against the established legal standard, known as the Microsoft test, and delivered distinct verdicts for each claim component. Regarding the On-Amazon claims, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant presented a credible, plausible theory of harm. Supported by preliminary data showing that Amazon Retail’s share of Apple product sales on the platform jumped from 25% to 99% post-agreement, the Tribunal found the methodology sound and grounded in available evidence. Conversely, the Tribunal refused to certify the Off-Amazon claims because sales data revealed Amazon’s overall market share of Apple products was far smaller than originally assumed. Consequently, the class representative failed to articulate a coherent economic theory demonstrating how On-Amazon price changes could exert a “gravitational pull” to drive up prices across outside physical and online retailers.
A central aspect of the ruling involved the expert evidence submitted by Dr. Chris Pike. While refusing to disregard his evidence entirely, the Tribunal expressed serious concerns over his objectivity. The CAT highlighted that Dr. Pike had originally instigated the litigation and held a reputational stake in its outcome, noting that his recent reports crossed into advocacy rather than providing impartial expert analysis.
Furthermore, the CAT addressed the litigation funding framework. The Tribunal declared it unacceptable for the current claim’s funding, fee, and insurance arrangements to recover costs or success fees tied to the previous, failed Riefa proceedings. Excluding those prior expenses reduces the projected success costs from approximately £128 million to £92 million, ensuring a fair cost-benefit balance as the On-Amazon action proceeds toward trial.