Class action proceedings against Apple in the Netherlands

Two foundations, the Foundation Right to Consumer Justice and the Foundation App Stores Claims (the Foundations), have initiated class action proceedings under the Dutch Act on Collective Damages in Class Actions (Dutch acronym: WAMCA), against two foreign Apple entities (Apple). The Foundations represent users and developers of apps running on Apple's operating system purchased from the Apple App Store. The Foundations state that Apple abused its dominant market position in violation of EU competition law (Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU). The Foundations seek compensation because Apple allegedly imposed excessive commissions on App Store purchases.

The Foundations brought the case before the District Court of Amsterdam (the Court) in the Netherlands. Apple contested the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that jurisdiction cannot be based on Article 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, hereafter: the Regulation). The Regulation sets uniform rules on jurisdiction and enables recognition and enforcement of civil judgments across EU Member States. The Regulation not only determines which EU Member State (e.g., the Dutch courts), but also which court in that EU Member State (e.g., the Amsterdam District Court) has territorial jurisdiction.

Article 7(2) of the Regulation provides that in matters relating to tort the courts in the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur have jurisdiction (next to the general rule that the court of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction). Both the court of the place of the event giving rise to the damages (Handlungsort) and the court of the place where the damages occurred (Erfolgsort) have jurisdiction.

Apple argued that, amongst others, the Handlungsort cannot be located in the Netherlands. Furthermore, Apple argued that the Erfolgsort is by its nature not suitable for determining jurisdiction in class actions. In the alternative, Apple argued that the Court only has jurisdiction regarding users who reside in Amsterdam or made purchases via the App Store NL in Amsterdam.  

Given that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the Court has jurisdiction in this situation, the Court decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) for preliminary questions. These questions only relate to the jurisdiction with respect the users (not the developers). The preliminary questions included in the Court’s judgment dated 30 December 2023 could be summarised as follows:

  1. When determining the Handlungsort and the Erfolgsort, does it matter that an interest organisation represents the interest of multiple users located in different districts (in Dutch: arrondissementen)?
  2. If multiple national courts within a Member State have territorial jurisdiction, does Article 7(2) of the Regulation preclude the application of national law that permits referral to one court within that Member State?

Opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU

The Advocate General states that a claim for damages does not lose its connection to the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred if a claim is transferred or if the claim is brought by a third party, such as an interest organisation in a class action. Compliance with the ‘predictability’ criterion of the Regulation precludes the court having jurisdiction, in respect of the same event giving rise to the damage, from changing according to whether the applicant is the holder of the interests, his or her successor, or a representative (of that holder or those interests).

In the Apple class action, the Court held that the sale of apps via the Apple Store is to be considered the event giving rise to the damage. Taking that event as a starting point, the Advocate General states that all sales of a user who, by virtue of his Apple ID, is directed to App Store NL, occur at that user’s place of residence in the Netherlands. Therefore, a user (or group of users residing in the same territorial jurisdiction) may bring an action, on the basis of the place of the event giving rise to the damages (Handlungsort), before the courts for his place of residence in the market affected by Apple’s anticompetitive practice. As regards the Erfolgsort the Advocate General states that the damages resulting from an excessive transfer of assets, which is inherent in the payment of an additional cost, can be located at the place of the user’s domicile which, as a rule is where the user’s assets are concentrated.

The Advocate General notes that the technical complexity of damages claims arising from potential competition law infringements may militate in favour of a centralisation of (territorial) jurisdiction. He states that he sees no reason why Dutch law should not provide for a single court to handle all representative actions for such damages where the Dutch courts have international jurisdiction.

The Advocate General explains that Dutch law currently does however not allow for such ex ante concentration. Dutch law does provide for the possibility to join cases which are pending in different courts ex post  before the court where the first case was brought.

According to the Advocate General, this approach where a case is concentrated ex post does in principle not respect the effectiveness of Article 7(2) of the Regulation. However, the Advocate General concludes that the rule on the concentration of proceedings, in certain circumstances, may contribute to the sound administration of justice. Centralising proceedings can optimise case management, save time and costs, and reduce inconsistent judgments. The Advocate General does not rule out that those factors are present where parallel proceedings are the result of representative actions but notes that the mere existence of such parallel representative actions by itself do not justify such centralisation. Referral to one court is thus not precluded by Article 7(2) of the Regulation. National courts must however assess each case individually to determine if centralisation serves the sound administration of justice.

Potential implications for the Apple case and other Dutch class actions

In the Netherlands, the WAMCA regime applies to all class actions initiated on or after 1 January 2020 and relating to events that took place on or after 15 November 2016, despite the topic of such action. The WAMCA introduced a new procedural system, allowing one or more interest organisations to file collective claims for damages on similar events, to be handled in one proceeding. The WAMCA aims to improve, inter alia, the coordinated handling collective claims and finality from the perspective of the defendant(s).

If individuals must bring proceedings before different courts in the same Member State (based on article 7(2) of the Regulation), the fact that an interest organisation initiates proceedings on their behalf does not impact the territorial jurisdiction of those relevant courts. The Opinion thus points out that since Dutch law does not provide for an ex ante allocation of territorial jurisdiction, the Court cannot simply claim jurisdiction over the entire group of individual users represented by an interest organisation.

For other class actions this means that if an interest organisation wants to bring class action proceedings on behalf of multiple individuals before the court where the harmful event occurred, the interest organisation must bring proceedings at each district court of the district where the represented individuals reside.

The Advocate General states the Regulation does not prevent the courts from subsequently transferring the ‘scattered’ cases to one district court for further adjudication, if the courts consider this approach to serve the sound administration of justice. As we understand the opinion, such concentration could specifically hold for competition law cases. Still, the Advocate General considers that there is no general rule prescribing that parallel class actions should be concentrated with one court.

Legislative changes desirable?

In the initial legislative proposal of the WAMCA a provision aimed at centralising all class actions at one court (i.e., the District Court of Amsterdam) was included. According to the legislator concentration enables coordination and prevents procedural chaos arising from collective compensation claims for the same event being brought simultaneously in several places against the same defendant(s). However, this proposal for concentration was later deleted from the WAMCA proposal for several reasons, amongst which that a class action might require special expertise that may be with another court than at the District Court of Amsterdam.

Nevertheless, under the WAMCA still some form of concentration takes place due to the fact that if subsequent interest organisations want to file a claim for the same event, the interest organisations must file their claims with the same court where the case was brought by the first interest organisation (Article 1018d (1) DCCP).

From the claimant’s perspective, the approach discussed by the Advocate General might feel impractical, as this requires multiple cases to be brought before different courts and then the interest organisation must request different court to refer the cases. If these requests are denied by the court, this leaves the interest organisation with multiple class actions with different courts. Still, in the absence of specific jurisdiction rules for class action proceedings, Article 7(2) of the Regulation requires interest organisations to bring multiple class actions before different courts.

In July 2025 the European Commission released its report assessing the implementation of the Regulation. In its report, the European Commission highlighted this problem and called for further research into the application of jurisdiction rules to collective claims. Based on the findings of the report, the European Commission will initiate a formal review of the Regulation to assess whether legislative amendments are necessary and appropriate. Please see our earlier blog for more information.

What is next in the Apple class action?

The opinion of the Advocate General serves as an independent legal opinion to the CJEU, which is not legally binding but often carries significant weight in the final ruling of the CJEU on preliminary questions raised by a court of a Member State. The CJEU will now issue a judgment, which will be binding to the national court that must decide on the matter (i.e., the District Court of Amsterdam). Should the CJEU follow the Opinion, the Court cannot claim jurisdiction over all individual users, but merely over the individuals residing in Amsterdam. It remains to be seen whether the Court for example will refer the case partially to different courts of the districts where the represented individuals reside or whether the Foundations need to initiate new proceedings in each district where the individuals reside. To be continued.

Contact us

Our team has vast experience with class actions, cross-border litigation and international jurisdiction. For more information, please contact one of the members of our team.