Did you download apps or made in-app purchases through Apple's App Store? You may be entitled to compensation for Apple’s anticompetitive behaviour.

Related Documents

The Antitrust Claim Against Apple in the iOS App Store Market

Today, a large majority of the population uses smartphones, and smartphone users install apps on them. Apps and in-app products allow smartphone users to navigate a city, catch the next train, play games, edit documents, track vital health statistics, stream music and videos, and do so much more. Apps exist for nearly every aspect of modern life.

There are only two main mobile operating systems, which control between 98% and 100% of the Dutch market: iOS and Android. As many know from first-hand experience, iOS and Android are not compatible; Android apps most often don’t work on iOS devices and vice versa. Additionally, iOS apps are only made available through Apple’s App Store. Therefore, if app developers want to reach Apple device users, they must sell their iOS apps through the App Store. Furthermore, if they wish to distribute in-app digital products – for example, subscriptions, game enhancements or other digital goods available within an app – they must use Apple’s proprietary in-app purchase mechanism.

Apple abused its market dominance in relation to the iOS App Store by unfairly restricting the use of alternative app distribution channels, leaving developers and consumers with no choice in these matters. As the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) concluded in a 2019 market study, “[w]ithin the iOS-ecosystem, there are no realistic alternatives for apps or the App Store, so the App Store forms a bottleneck within the iOS-ecosystem.”

From the very beginning of iOS app development, Apple knew that its distribution restraints had cornered the market. This has caused harm to consumers, in prohibiting them from having access to more choice and a fair price. The Foundation seeks collective damages for the losses suffered by Dutch iOS consumers as a direct result of this anti-competitive behaviour of Apple regarding the distribution of apps and in-app products on the iOS App Store.

Consumers have sustained losses as a result of Apple's abuse of its dominant position. Apple imposed unfair conditions on app developers, forcing them to use Apple’s in-app purchasing system (to which it applied a 30% commission fee) and prohibiting the use of alternative distribution channels (anti-steering rules). As a result, whenever a consumer made an in-app purchase, the iOS app developer had to pay the mandatory 30% commission fee to Apple. The European Commission points out that this caused monetary harm to consumers as “the cost of the commission fee must be and is passed on to iOS users in the form of higher prices”.

Why Competition is Important

National, international and EU laws and regulations have long recognized the importance of a competitive market. Competition avoids single companies setting market prices for their products as high as they like. It also motivates companies to produce high-quality goods and services and to continuously improve their products, as this attracts more consumers. Therefore, competition boosts the economy, preserves consumer confidence, and enhances consumer welfare through lower prices, better quality and/or more choice.

Apple's Anticompetitive Behaviour

Being the sole provider of a distribution platform for native apps to iOS users, Apple has abused its power in numerous ways.

  • Most prominently, and as found by both the European Commission and the Dutch Competition Authority, Apple imposed anti-steering rules and payment restrictions that forced app developers to exclusively distribute their iOS apps through the iOS App Store under unfair conditions.
  • Apple charged app developers a default 30% commission fee on the sale of iOS apps and in-app purchases from the iOS App Store. In the Windows PC ecosystem, where there are rival app distributors and thus competition, commissions are much lower with some distributors charging as little as 10% and 12% per transaction.
  • This abusive behaviour resulted in damage for iOS users, most evidently since the (excessive) 30% commission fee imposed on app developers was subsequently passed on to iOS end-users when making in-app purchases.

The Foundation's Goal and Support

Apple has profited massively off these fees by non-compliance with EU and Dutch competition law and the Foundation seeks to compel Apple to compensate consumers damaged by Apple’s anticompetitive conduct. It has support from Hagens Berman EMEA LLP whose US counterpart firm recently brought a motion for class certification in the US and retained prominent economic experts. Within the US litigation, Hagens Berman already analysed large quantities of documents and Apple’s transactional data, and deposed Apple’s senior management, including CEO Tim Cook.

Timeline

December 2, 2025
In the Apple iOS App Store case, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a judgment stating that the Netherlands courts have jurisdiction to hear a representative action concerning the alleged anti-competitive conduct of an operator of an online platform, such as Apple in relation to its App Store aimed at the Dutch market. The Court of Justice recalled settled case-law which allows the claimant to bring an action on the basis of the place where the damage occurred. “In that context, the Court finds that that identification of the place where the damage occurred, in order to determine the court having jurisdiction, meets the objectives of proximity, predictability of the rules governing jurisdiction, and the sound administration of justice,” it stated in its press release.

May 13, 2026 Decision on Jurisdiction

The Foundation welcomes the judgment of the Amsterdam District Court, which has now rendered a final decision regarding the Court’s jurisdiction in the iOS App Store proceedings.

In line with the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice, the Amsterdam Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear the entirety of the Foundation’s consumer claims. The Foundation represents the collective interests of all consumers who purchased digital products through the Dutch App Store.

The Foundation is pleased that the proceedings can now continue on behalf of consumers and intends to further refine and strengthen its claims. Since the summons was filed (in 2021), many legal and regulatory developments relating to Apple and the App Store ecosystem have taken place, which the Foundation believes further support its position.

In the next step in the proceedings, the Foundation is allowed to put forward a statement. Subsequently the proceedings will be stayed until after the Supreme Court rules on the applicability of Dutch collective action laws.

“The Foundation will continue to vigorously defend the rights of Dutch consumers,” said Michael Lints, Chair of the Management Board of the Foundation. “We believe consumers are entitled to a fair and competitive digital marketplace, and we look forward to advancing these proceedings further.”

If you have any questions, please email us at info@consumerjustice.eu.