The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has formally rejected Apple's request to appeal a previous ruling that ordered it to pay $2 billion to App Store users, but the case has not yet been finalized. Apple had previously applied for leave to appeal at the CAT Tribunal in an attempt to overturn the huge verdict. However, CAT has now decided that Apple’s grounds for appeal have “no reasonable prospect of success” and therefore rejected its application.
Currently, other matters related to the judgment payment process are still under discussion. Apple will receive a formal written notice of rejection in the near future, at which time the case will enter the next stage.
The rejection was limited to the CAT court and Apple was not allowed to continue its appeal in the same court. Apple can still appeal further to the UK's Court of Appeal. It is reported that it is not unusual for the CAT to refuse an appeal at this stage, as the same tribunal usually does not overturn its own original judgment.
The court is currently discussing the specific terms for Apple to pay the $2 billion judgment, while also handling details such as related costs and fund custody to ensure the proper management of the judgment during subsequent appeals.
Once Apple receives a formal written ruling, it has 21 days to file a formal appeal to a higher court.
Apple has provided documents for its appeal application to CAT. CAT has rejected these grounds, but Apple is expected to raise the arguments again in its appeal to the High Court.
Apple believes that CAT unreasonably compared App Store fees with fees from services such as Steam, Epic and Microsoft, arguing that these platforms do not have the complete tools provided by Apple. At the same time, the court only compared the minimum charges for these services, without considering the prevalence of these minimum charges in actual business.
The court also accepted the claim that developers would charge lower prices to users if the App Store platform fees were reduced. Apple believes that this statement lacks evidence and cites the latest research report that developers do not pass on platform cost savings to users.
In addition, Apple objected to the specific calculation of US$2 billion in the judgment, arguing that the court’s “founded estimate” lacked rigorous data support.
Apple also emphasized again that it is not a monopoly and users can still choose alternative platforms such as Android. Apple submitted a total of 77 different opinions to the court, believing that CAT had many legal errors.
CAT has provided an oral rebuttal to the main points at the hearing, and it is unclear whether subsequent written rulings will continue to respond in detail to various arguments raised by Apple.
These reasons are expected to be the main points of contention in Apple's continued appeal in the High Court. If CAT issues a formal ruling on November 14 as expected, Apple will need to submit an appeal by December 5, 2025 at the latest.