The UK's Competition Appeals Tribunal has refused to grant Apple an appeal against the ruling that saw it required to pay App Store users $2 billion, but the case is not over.
Apple has been in court for a hearing with the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), where it was seeking permission to pursue an appeal with the tribunal. CAT has now refused that appeal, saying that in its judgement Apple's arguments do not have any reasonable chance of success.
The hearing is currently in progress and discussing other issues relating to the payment process. But Apple is to be issued with a formal refusal shortly, and as soon as it is, the next steps begin.
Apple was required to seek permission from CAT, but this refusal only prevents it appealing to the same tribunal. Apple can now go to the UK's higher court of appeal.
Reportedly, it is not unusual for CAT to refuse an appeal at this stage. That's because CAT is the same tribunal that passed the original ruling, so it would be criticising itself.
What happens next
The court is still discussing terms of Apple paying the $2 billion sum, and is into specifics over costs. It's also discussing issues regarding how the money will be held while any further appeal is being held.
What is clear is that from the moment Apple receives the formal, written version of the denial, it has 21 days in which to file with the court of appeal.
Apple's response
Apple has not directly commented on the CAT denying its appeal. However, it has reissued the statement it made following the original ruling.
We thank the tribunal for its consideration but strongly disagree with this ruling, which takes a flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy. The App Store has benefited businesses and consumers across the U.K., creating a dynamic marketplace where developers compete and users can choose from millions of innovative apps. This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments. The App Store faces vigorous competition from many other platforms — often with far fewer privacy and security protections — giving developers and consumers many options in how they build, share, and download apps. We intend to appeal.
Apple's grounds for further appeal
Apple has provided AppleInsider with its filing with CAT regarding its request for appeal. Although CAT has now denied that appeal, Apple will presumably present these same arguments.
While they can't as yet be compared to any similar documentation from the opposing counsel, Apple's arguments do appear to be strong ones.
Apple argues that CAT compared the App Store fees to ones from Steam, Epic, and Microsoft that are not comparable because they do not offer the tools that Apple does. Then the court compared Apple to only the lowest fees these services charge, with allegedly no regard for how common those starting fees are.
The case concerns allegations that App Store practices lead to higher app prices
Then the court allegedly accepted as fact that developers would have charged consumers less if App Store fees were lower. Apple says there is no evidence of that — and, separately, has now supported a study that concludes this is not true.
Having decided on a comparison Apple says is unfair, and then presuming developers would reduce costs, the company objects to the court's final calculation. According to Apple's documentation, CAT calculated the $2 billion figure using what the tribunal itself called "informed guesswork."
Next, Apple returns to its regular argument that it is not a monopoly and that users have alternatives. Specifically, its documentation says that the court ignored the existence of Android.
In all, Apple presented the court with 33 points of disagreement with the ruling, a great many of which specifically stated that CAT had made errors in law.
The headline points were rebutted by CAT in its verbal ruling during the hearing. It's not clear yet whether the following written ruling will contest Apple's findings in any further detail.
But these will be the arguments Apple presents to the court of appeal. Presuming that the formal denial is issued by November 14, 2025, as CAT suggests, Apple has until at most December 5, 2025, to begin putting its case to the higher court.
