The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified collective proceedings against Alphabet Inc. and several Google entities, marking a significant step forward in a high-profile abuse of dominance case brought under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. The claim, filed by Professor Barry Rodger on behalf of UK-based third-party app developers, alleges exclusionary conduct and unfair pricing practices in the Android app distribution and mobile operating system markets. The Tribunal’s decision, issued on 6 August 2025, authorises Professor Rodger to act as class representative and confirms that the claim will proceed on an opt-out basis.
The judgment ([2025] CAT 45) is important not only for the underlying competition law issues but also for its detailed analysis of litigation funding arrangements, which are becoming increasingly central to the certification of collective proceedings. The Tribunal found that the proposed class representative met both the authorisation and eligibility conditions required by the Tribunal Rules, and concluded that collective proceedings are the most appropriate mechanism for resolving the claims efficiently and fairly.
The case concerns Google’s control over the Android ecosystem, including its ownership of the Android operating system and the Google Play Store. The claimant alleges that Google has abused its dominant position by engaging in conduct that excludes rival app distribution channels and by charging app developers excessive and unfair commission fees for purchases and subscriptions made through the Play Store. The proposed class includes all UK-domiciled third-party developers who paid such commissions within a six-year period preceding the claim’s filing in August 2024.
In certifying the claim, the Tribunal placed significant emphasis on the nature of the class and the proportionality of the collective mechanism. It noted that many of the class members are small businesses with limited resources, who would be unlikely to pursue individual competition claims due to cost, complexity, and potential commercial sensitivities in litigating against Google. The Tribunal found that the class is identifiable, that common issues predominate, and that the proceedings are suitable for an aggregate award of damages, especially given the estimated total value of the claims ranging from £374 million to over £1 billion when including compound interest.
A central focus of the proceedings was the funding arrangement between the class representative and Bench Walk Guernsey PCC Limited. Google, though not present at the certification hearing, submitted detailed written observations questioning whether the structure gave undue preference to the funder and potentially conflicted with the interests of class members. The Tribunal reviewed these concerns extensively, examining clauses relating to the order of payments, the funder’s return, and the termination rights of the funding agreement. It ultimately concluded that the arrangement, as amended, did not preclude certification and could operate within the supervisory safeguards of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the litigation funding agreement permitted the funder to be paid ahead of class members in certain circumstances, but held that such prioritisation is not impermissible under the statutory scheme, especially where the funding terms are transparent, subject to judicial approval, and accompanied by appropriate governance mechanisms. Drawing on precedent from cases such as Gutmann v Apple and Ennis v Apple, the Tribunal reaffirmed that the return to funders should reflect the risk assumed, and that commercial incentives alone do not undermine the fairness of the proceedings.
The proceedings will be jointly managed with two related actions: the Coll proceedings, which involve similar allegations on behalf of Android users, and the Epic Games proceedings, brought by major app developers. The Tribunal has already held multiple joint case management conferences and is expected to rule on the admissibility of expert evidence in the coming months.
With certification now granted, the case moves into the next phase of litigation, including disclosure and the preparation of economic evidence. The claim represents a growing wave of digital markets enforcement in the UK and illustrates the maturing of the collective redress regime in complex competition disputes. It also sends a clear signal that dominant technology platforms operating in the UK will face close judicial scrutiny where their commercial practices give rise to competition concerns.
The case is formally registered under reference number 1673/7/7/24. The judgment is unanimous and was issued by a panel chaired by the Honourable Mr Justice Morris, with Tribunal members Tim Frazer and Andrew Taylor sitting.
