Second time’s not the charm: CAT declines to certify £1 billion+ element of collective claim

29/09/26

On 28 September 2026, the Competition Appeal Tribunal handed down judgment in JLP A&A Class Representative v Apple and Amazon [2026] CAT 75, declining to certify almost all of the proposed collective claim by alleged claim value.  The CAT ruled that the remaining minority of the claim would be suitable for certification only if significant funding and remuneration issues are addressed.

The proceedings represent the second attempt at certification, the first claim having been dismissed outright in early 2025 in the well-known Riefa v Apple & Amazon proceedings due to concerns about the personal suitability of the proposed class representative (see here). Following that defeat, the Class Representative was reconstituted, with Justin Le Patourel taking over from Professor Riefa, and essentially the same claim was re-filed in December 2025.

The claim concerns an agreement between Apple and Amazon that limits which sellers can sell Apple products through the Amazon Marketplace, for product safety reasons and to combat counterfeiting.

The proposed class representative sought permission to pursue collective proceedings alleging that the agreement caused price increases in Apple products purchased both ‘on-Amazon’ (through the Amazon UK Store) and ‘off-Amazon’ (through Apple and other retailers). The Defendants opposed certification of the ‘off-Amazon’ part of the claim on the basis that it was implausible and unsupported by evidence.

The Tribunal has now given judgment, refusing certification of the much larger ‘off-Amazon’ part of the claim, and only certifying the smaller ‘on-Amazon’ claim on a contingent basis.  The proposed class representative’s expert had given an “illustrative damages” figure for the off-Amazon claim of over £1.3 billion; the remaining on-Amazon claim is alleged to be worth less than a quarter of that sum, at around £300 million.

The Tribunal expressed concerns about the independence and objectivity of the proposed class representative’s economic expert, given the “adversarial” approach taken in his evidence, which affected the weight that could be placed on it; and found that that off-Amazon claim “rests on a complex and speculative theory of harm which has not been adequately explained”. On that basis, it held that this part of the claim failed the Microsoft v Pro-Sys test for certification.

The Tribunal also agreed with the Defendants that the remaining ‘on-Amazon’ part of the claim could not be certified until funding documents were amended to remove “manifestly unreasonable and inappropriate” provisions that allowed litigation funders, insurers and lawyers to recover costs associated with the failed Riefa proceedings.  Further, the Tribunal criticised Mr Le Patourel’s proposed remuneration, and made certification conditional on him accepting a rate of £170 per hour (subject to a daily cap of £750).