Key takeaways
UK embraces US-style tech antitrust litigation
Collective actions signal growing regulatory scrutiny.
App store practices face major legal challenges
Billing restrictions and commissions under fire in CAT.
Collective actions raise high financial exposure
Claims exceed £30 billion, reshaping risk landscape.
The UK is witnessing a surge in competition law challenges against major tech platforms. Recent cases before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) highlight growing scrutiny of app store practices and signal a shift toward pro-active US-style antitrust litigation. For tech companies, these developments could reshape digital distribution and pricing models.
What are these cases about?
Two landmark cases – Epic Games Inc -v- Alphabet Inc and Rodger -v- Alphabet Inc – have become focal points before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and target Google’s app store practices. Epic Games Inc, creator of Fortnite, brought a claim alleging Google abused its dominance in the market by forcing app developers to use Google Pay billing, which carries a commission of around 30%. Alongside this, Professor Barry Rodger is leading a collective action on behalf of approximately 2,200 UK app developers, seeking damages of up to £1 billion for inflated commissions and exclusionary conduct. Another case brought by Elizabeth Coll represents nearly 19.5 million UK Android users who claim they were overcharged for apps and in-app purchases. These cases have now been consolidated for joint case management and are scheduled for trial in October 2026.
Why does this matter for tech companies?
They directly challenge Google’s control over app distribution and payment systems, which could potentially lead to major operational changes. Financial exposure is considerable, the current value of claims against Google and Apple exceeding £30 billion. Importantly, the proceedings mark a shift in the UK CAT attitude towards tech collective actions with the Court showing readiness to certify these complex competition claims. This receptive attitude may pave the way for similar claims by developers or consumers which increases litigation risk for companies involved with app distribution or digital payment systems
If you are an app developer or operate in the digital market, these cases may directly affect you due to their potential to redefine distribution and pricing which has long been criticised as hidden and anti-competitive. Collective actions are particularly significant because they can be high-risk for defendants and highly attractive for claimants, especially those who join the case later on. Unlike individual claims, collective proceedings reduce the cost liability for those bringing the claim, meaning claimants have little to lose while the potential damages can be enormous. This can also create a snowball effect, in which one claim succeeds and opens the floodgates for similar actions. For large tech companies, this represents a serious exposure to financial and reputation risks. Staying informed and proactive is therefore essential to mitigate risk and adapt to the changing legal landscape.
Global perspective
These proceedings mark a significant move towards following the trends of the US: one example being Apple’s £1.5 billion trial in May 2025, where Apple was held in civil contempt for flouting a 2021 injunction by continuing to charge 27% commission. Epic has also pursued both Google and Apple in the US, resulting in high-profile trials and settlements. Closer to home, the EU has continued to adopt a proactive stance of strict enforcement of competition rules through the Digital Marketing Act (Regulation 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council). The DMA introduced requirements for interoperability, prohibitions on self-preferencing, and restrictions on bundling practices. Enforcement has been robust and the first penalties of hundreds of millions of euros have already been issued against major tech firms for non-compliance.
Key takeaways for tech executives:
Collective actions in the tech sector for breach of competition law appear likely to increase. If injunctive relief is granted in these or other cases, app store payment models could be fundamentally reshaped, forcing businesses to rethink pricing and distribution strategies. Tech companies operating restrictive payment systems face increased scrutiny and need to consider pricing models carefully to avoid acting anti-competitively. Businesses in the space must assess risk and may face increased compliance costs as a result. Competition proceedings involve extensive disclosure obligations and high costs, making proactive preparation (for example exploring litigation funding strategies) critical. That said, these actions should of course serve to increase competition in these markets, so innovative businesses presenting workable alternatives could benefit from increased investment opportunities and gain market share. Companies that monitor these changes, engage with legal advisors early on, and implement robust compliance frameworks will be best positioned to mitigate risk and adapt to the developing regulatory environment.
This article was co-authored by Maddie Rimmer.
