According to TechSpot, a collective lawsuit has been filed in the UK seeking over £900 million (about $1.1 billion) from Apple and Amazon. The claim, led by former Ofcom official Justin Le Patourel, alleges the two tech giants struck a secretive supply deal back in 2018. This agreement allegedly gave Amazon preferential wholesale terms for Apple products while restricting authorized third-party sellers from the platform. The lawsuit argues this collusion kept prices for iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks “artificially high” for UK consumers. It estimates around 10 million customers who bought new Apple devices since October 2018, whether on Amazon or elsewhere like Curry’s, could be eligible for compensation. Amazon has already rejected the claims, stating the 2018 deal actually improved consumer choice and access.
The core accusation
Here’s the thing: this isn’t about a secret handshake in a dark room. It’s about the structural impact of a formal agreement. The claim argues that before 2018, Amazon’s marketplace was a bit of a wild west for Apple gear. You had loads of authorized resellers competing, which theoretically keeps prices down. The 2019 agreement, they say, basically cleaned house. It let Amazon become the dominant, “authorized” seller while pushing nearly everyone else out. So, was that about ensuring product authenticity and reliable supply, as Amazon claims? Or was it a clever way to reduce price competition and control the market? That’s the multi-million-pound question the tribunal will have to unravel.
A pattern of scrutiny
This doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Look at the context. Apple just lost a UK lawsuit over “excessive” App Store fees. The EU fined them half a billion euros for restricting app developers. Amazon, for its part, just coughed up a massive $2.5 billion to settle FTC claims in the US. There’s a global regulatory wave crashing over Big Tech’s walled gardens and marketplace controls. This UK lawsuit feels like another log on that fire. It’s using the collective action mechanism—think of it like a class action—to go after alleged consumer harm directly, rather than waiting for a slow-moving regulator to impose a fine. That’s a significant shift in strategy.
What happens next
First, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has to decide if this can even proceed as a collective action. A similar case was dismissed last year, so that’s not a given. But if it does go forward, the discovery process could be brutal for Apple and Amazon. We’re talking internal emails, strategy documents, the whole lot. Even if they ultimately win, the reputational and operational headache is huge. For consumers, the opt-out nature is key. If it succeeds, you’re automatically included unless you say no. That could mean a small check in the mail years from now. But the real goal here isn’t just compensation—it’s to force a change in how these platforms operate. Will it work? Or is this just the cost of doing business for trillion-dollar companies? I’m skeptical it’ll be a knockout blow, but it definitely adds to the pressure.
