Apple's legal battle over its App Store practices in the UK continues. Despite already suffering a defeat in court, the ruling regarding a potential $2 billion payment is being appealed again. At the heart of the matter is whether Apple financially disadvantaged App Store users for years and whether the court's calculations are even valid.
The case surrounding Apple and the App Store exemplifies the growing conflict between major tech platforms and regulatory authorities. Digital marketplaces have long been a part of everyday life, yet political and legal pressure is mounting to scrutinize their power and fee structures. The British proceedings demonstrate the complexity of these conflicts and how protracted they can be.
Background of the ruling
In November 2025, the UK's Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) rejected Apple's appeal against an earlier ruling it had issued. That ruling stipulated that Apple should pay approximately $2 billion to App Store users who were allegedly disadvantaged by the company's fee policy.
The court thus upheld a decision that had already been considered a victory for the plaintiffs in October 2025. The amount relates to allegedly excessive commissions that Apple is said to have charged in the App Store.
The lawsuit and its significance
The original lawsuit was filed by Dr. Rachael Kent. After the victory, she stated that the verdict still felt unreal. In her view, the case marks a turning point because people are increasingly fighting back against the downsides of the digital world and its financial consequences.
From their perspective, the trial shows that everyday digital services have real economic impacts and that these can no longer be accepted without protest (via AppleInsider).
Apple's renewed objection
Despite the defeat at the Court of Appeal (CAT), Apple has taken the next step. As reported by The Guardian, among others, an appeal has been filed with the UK Court of Appeal.
Apple has not yet commented further, but had previously listed 33 specific points on which the company disagrees with the ruling. The main point of contention is the criticism of how the supposedly fair App Store fee is calculated.
Apple finds it particularly problematic that the App Store Computing Centre (CAT) stated it relied on well-founded assumptions when determining a reasonable fee. From Apple's perspective, these are speculative assumptions that do not accurately reflect the economic realities of the App Store. This very argument is likely to play a central role in the appeals court.
Apple's position on the App Store
In a previous statement, Apple made it clear that while it thanked the court for the discussion, it fundamentally disagreed with the ruling. Apple argues that the ruling paints a false picture of an allegedly problematic app economy.
According to the company, the App Store has helped businesses and consumers across the UK and created a dynamic marketplace. Developers can compete with each other there, while users can choose from millions of innovative apps.
Furthermore, Apple emphasizes that the App Store competes with many other platforms that often place significantly less emphasis on data protection and security. In contrast, its own marketplace offers a safe and trustworthy place to discover apps and process payments securely. The ruling ignores this aspect and underestimates the App Store's role in the success of many developers.
What happens next
After the CAT refused to review its own ruling, Apple reportedly had 21 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Depending on when Apple received the written ruling, this deadline expired on either December 4 or 5, 2025.
It remains unclear what caused the delay in public notification or whether special circumstances allowed for a later filing. The appeal is not yet listed in the official court records. Accordingly, there is no publicly available timetable for the next hearing or a decision by the appellate court.
Apple continues to fight for its App Store model
The renewed appeal shows that Apple is not giving up the legal battle over the App Store. For the company, not only is a potential $2 billion settlement at stake, but also the fundamental business model of its digital marketplace. The further course of the proceedings remains open, but it is already clear that the decision could have far-reaching consequences for the regulation of digital platforms, not only in Great Britain, but also beyond. (Image: Shutterstock / Mattia Bicchi)
- macOS Gatekeeper bypassed via two-stage malware chain
- Apple Intelligence must pass China's AI censorship test
- Ted Lasso Season 4: Producers announce possible release date
- Apple allows alternative app stores on iOS in Brazil
- iOS 26.3 receives praise from the EU for new features
- WhatsApp is testing a new quiz feature for channels
- Apple and China: Government-level meeting confirmed
- Apple under pressure: Italy imposes millions in fines
- Apple warns employees with visas against international travel
- Data retention: Government wants to store IP addresses
- Apple TV cancels "The Last Frontier" after one season
- Apple showcases new AI research on smartphone photography
- Apple indirectly forces iPhone users to update to iOS 26
- Samsung is entering the 2nm era earlier with Exynos 2600
- AirPods Pro 3: Background noise persists even after updates
- ChatGPT extends the chat history with an important new function
- Apple introduces UniGen 1.5: An AI model for all images
- A macOS bug has caused Studio Display to flicker for months
- Apple plans to increase advertising in App Store search starting in 2026
- ChatGPT now supports Apple Music directly within the app
- Apple opens App Store in Japan and changes iOS rules
- Apple TV expands Monarch universe with new spin-off
- Apple introduces SHARP: 3D scenes from just one photo
- Apple stock: Morgan Stanley raises price target to $315
- The Trump administration is threatening the EU with retaliation over DMA
