TLDRs;
- EU court confirms Dutch jurisdiction, allowing foundations to pursue antitrust claims against Apple.
- Lawsuit accuses Apple of abusing its dominance through high App Store fees.
- Dutch collective action rules give foundations a structured path to seek user compensation.
- Claims-tech platforms may accelerate case-building by gathering impacted Dutch App Store users.
Apple is now facing the possibility of a major antitrust lawsuit in the Netherlands after the European Union’s top court ruled that Dutch courts can hear complaints over alleged App Store abuses. The decision, issued on December 2, 2025 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), opens the door for two Dutch consumer rights foundations to pursue damages on behalf of millions of App Store users.
The case, brought by Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores, claims that Apple has leveraged its dominant position to impose excessive fees on third-party app developers, costs that ultimately trickle down to consumers.
Both foundations argue that Apple’s long-standing commission structure and restrictive App Store rules amount to unfair market behavior prohibited under EU competition law.
Claims of Excessive App Store Fees
At the center of the dispute is Apple’s standard commission model, which often charges developers up to 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions. The Dutch organizations contend that these fees inflate consumer prices and limit choice inside the App Store ecosystem.
Their filings argue that Apple’s control over app distribution on iOS devices leaves developers with no practical alternative, thereby creating “an artificially constrained marketplace.”
Apple attempted to block the lawsuit by asserting that Dutch courts lacked jurisdiction, claiming that any alleged consumer harm would have occurred outside the Netherlands. The CJEU disagreed, stating that because the App Store is localized for Dutch users and app purchases happen within the country, Dutch consumers can indeed be affected.
That connection, the court said, is enough to give Dutch judges the authority to hear the matter. Apple did not comment on the ruling.
Collective Action Rules Shape the Case
The lawsuit will unfold under the Dutch Collective Damages Act (WAMCA), a law that has reshaped large-scale consumer litigation since taking effect in 2020. Under WAMCA, only foundations or associations can bring collective actions, and they must demonstrate broad support, transparent governance, and adequate representation before courts allow the case to proceed.
WAMCA cases follow a structured, multi-phase system that includes an admissibility assessment, a liability phase, possible settlement negotiations, and finally, damages distribution. Dutch residents are automatically included unless they opt out, while non-residents participate only by opting in.
Courts also scrutinize litigation funding, requiring that control stays with the consumer group and not the funders. Typically, funder success fees fall between 20% and 35%, and organizational directors cannot profit personally from the claims.
The Dutch government has accelerated its scheduled review of WAMCA rules amid concerns that representativeness requirements can slow down high-impact cases, making this Apple suit an important test of the system’s resilience.
Claims-Tech Firms Prepare to Mobilize Users
Legal funders and claims-tech companies are expected to play a significant role in organizing Dutch App Store users who may have been affected. These firms can tap into EU consumer groups, analyze the Dutch collective action register, and identify active foundations to build case volume.
Many funders operate under a “no cure, no pay” framework, lowering the barrier for consumers to join collective actions. Some, like Deminor, also offer protection against adverse legal costs, helping reduce risks for participants.
In cases involving complex digital platforms like Apple’s App Store, claims-tech tools, such as automated supporter tracking and claim verification systems, can help foundations meet the strict admissibility requirements mandated by WAMCA.


