Class action proceedings against Apple in the Netherlands

Two Dutch foundations – the Foundation Right to Consumer Justice and the Foundation App Stores Claims – filed a class action under the WAMCA against Apple before the Amsterdam District Court (the Court). They allege that Apple abused its dominant position by charging excessive App Store commissions, violating EU competition law (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU).

Apple challenged the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (the Regulation). This Article provides that in matters relating to tort 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. This in addition to the general rule that the court of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. The Regulation not only determines which country (e.g., the Dutch courts), but also which court in that country (e.g., the Amsterdam District Court) has territorial jurisdiction.

Apple argued, in short, that neither the Handlungsort nor the Erfolgsort (for all users) can be located in Amsterdam. Apple alleged that, at most, the Amsterdam court has jurisdiction regarding users who reside or purchased apps in Amsterdam.

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 of apps purchased via the App Store (not the developers). The preliminary questions included in the Court’s judgment dated 30 December 2023 could be summarised as follows:

  • 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)?
  • 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?

A commentary of our colleagues on this judgment was published earlier in the journal Dutch Private International Law (NIPR) and could be accessed here.

Opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU

The Advocate General advised a strict interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Regulation: jurisdiction should remain tied to the place of individual harm, even when claims are brought by an interest organisation. He stressed that predictability under the Regulation means the competent court cannot change depending on whether the claimant is the original holder, a successor, or a representative. In his view, Dutch law does not allow ex ante centralisation, and while ex post concentration is possible, it does not fully respect the effectiveness of Article 7(2).

The Advocate General concludes that the rule on the concentration of proceedings, in certain circumstances, may contribute to the sound administration of justice. Referral to one court is not precluded but must be justified on a case-by-case basis.

For further information on the Opinion, please see our earlier blog here.

Judgment of the CJEU

The CJEU did not follow the Advocate General’s approach. After recalling established case law on Article 7(2) of the Regulation, the CJEU noted that traditional connecting factors cannot easily apply where claims concern purchases of digital products on an online platform by an indefinite number of individuals who were unidentified when the case was initiated. The CJEU stated that adaption was necessary:

“The difficulties in applying those connecting factors therefore require them to be adapted in order to preserve the effectiveness of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and to contribute to the sound administration of justice.”

On that basis, the CJEU held that the NL App Store constitutes a single virtual market covering the entire Netherlands. Because of this, the damage related to buying apps from that app store occurred in the Netherlands as a whole. Any Dutch court that is materially competent can hear the entire claim for all users, not just those in its district.

According to the CJEU the approach is consistent with the objectives of the Regulation (proximity, predictability and of the sound administration of justice). It justified its approach by pointing to efficiency and the complexity of competition law cases, reasoning that consolidating claims in one court makes it easier to handle the complex factual and economic analysis required in such cases.

Potential impact of the CJEU judgment

The judgment means that one Dutch court can handle the case for all affected parties within its jurisdiction, making the process more practical by avoiding scattered claims across different courts.

However, whether the CJEU’s interpretation aligns with the Regulation is debateable. Article 7(2) of the Regulation clearly allocates territorial jurisdiction to the place of individual harm, which must therefore be identified. It can be questioned whether the CJEU could override this allocation by introducing an interpretation based on efficiency and sound administration of justice.

Academic views on the topic differ. Some commentators welcome the decision of the CJEU as a major step forward for consumer class actions in the Netherlands and beyond (see for example Xandra Kramer, professor of private law at Erasmus University Rotterdam). Others argue that while consolidation improves efficiency, the judgment may go beyond the literal wording of the Regulation and that legislative reform, rather than judicial interpretation, is the appropriate way to address these issues (see for example Geert van Calster, professor of private international law at KU Leuven).

The (necessary) legislative change might come. In July 2025, the European Commission called for further research into the application of jurisdiction rules to collective claims in its report assessing the implementation of the Regulation. 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.

What is next?

Whether EU lawmakers will act is still uncertain. In the meantime, the CJEU judgment’s impact appears limited. The Court’s reasoning hinges on the NL App Store’s strong national orientation – the NL App Store is designed for the Dutch market, uses the Dutch language, and offers apps tailored to the Dutch market.

If an online platform does not specifically target one country, it is harder to argue that an entire country is “the place where the damage occurred.” In such cross-border situations, courts are likely to fall back on the traditional approach, which involves determining jurisdiction based on each individual user’s domicile. This often leads to fragmented litigation across multiple jurisdictions.

One thing is certain: the Apple-case now returns to the Amsterdam Court, which will determine whether Apple must proceed to a hearing on the merits of the class action.

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.