A major legal battle between Apple and Amazon is back in the spotlight in the United Kingdom, once again raising the risk in damages hundreds of millions of dollars for the two tech giants. At the center is a partnership agreement signed in 2018 that, according to the plaintiffs, may have restricted the sale of Apple products by independent resellers through Amazon's platform.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has allowed part of the case to continue, overturning an earlier decision that had suspended it. The development reignites accusations of practices that could restrict competition and cost consumers.
However, the decision does not constitute a finding of guilt nor does it mean that the two companies will ultimately be required to pay damages. The case will need to be examined further, while some of the initial allegations have already been dismissed.
Apple – Amazon: The 2018 agreement that sparked the legal dispute
The partnership between Apple and Amazon began in 2018, when the two companies agreed to allow wider distribution of Apple and Beats products through Amazon's e-commerce platform.
The deal was presented as a way to strengthen official distribution and combat counterfeit products on the market. However, according to the lawsuit, it also created conditions that limited the ability of independent sellers to sell their products through Amazon Marketplace.
See also: Amazon buys out Apple's stake in Globalstar
The plaintiffs argue that these restrictions limited the number of available suppliers, reducing competitive pressures on prices. If a consumer has fewer options to purchase the same product, he or she may have difficulty finding lower prices or more favorable purchase terms.
This is the basic economic dimension of the case: whether a commercial agreement concerning the official distribution of products can affect the functioning of an entire electronic marketplace.
Why did the British court allow the lawsuit to continue?
The lawsuit was initially filed by Christine Riefa, an academic specializing in consumer protection law. The proceedings were suspended in January 2025 due to concerns about the proposed consumer representative and the funding of the case.
The revised version, which was refiled in December 2025, named Justin Le Patourel. The court found that there was sufficient basis to consider claims of potential harm associated with the sales of Apple products through the Amazon Marketplace.
Instead, it rejected the part concerning the prices of products sold by Apple itself or by other retailers outside the specific platform. According to the court's judgment, there was insufficient evidence to support a causal link between the restrictions at issue and prices in these different markets.
See also: Amazon: Extremely low prices on previous Apple Watch models
Judge Kelyn Bacon described the relevant arguments as complex and hypothetical as to how the damage was supposedly caused. Thus, the case continues with a clearly more limited scope than it initially had.
Possible compensation of up to 289 million pounds
The financial stakes remain significant. According to Le Patourel, the part of the lawsuit that was accepted to proceed could result in damages of at least 289 million pounds, an amount equivalent to approximately $383 million.
The original version of the case was valued at approximately $602 million. The reduction in the scope of the claims therefore limits the potential financial scope of the dispute, without eliminating the risk for the two companies.
A spokesman for Le Patourel welcomed the decision, while expressing disappointment at the dismissal of certain claims. Apple strongly disagreed with the charges, arguing that the agreement was aimed at productscounterfeit. Amazon, for its part, described the part of the lawsuit that is still pending as unfounded.
What the case means for consumers and online shopping
The dispute highlights a broader issue for e-commerce: how to balance protecting consumers from counterfeiting with the need to maintain a competitive environment.
See also: Amazon's new discounts on Apple's M5 iPad Pro
Agreements between manufacturers and large platforms can offer better control over distribution, authentic products and clearer service processes. At the same time, however, when access for independent sellers is restricted, competition authorities examine whether barriers are created that affect choice and prices for the public.
For consumers, the crucial question is not only whether a product is available through an official channel, but also whether there are still sufficient alternative purchase options. The Apple and Amazon case could help shape this debate, depending on the evidence presented and the conclusions of the legal proceedings.
At present, it has not been found that the companies broke competition law. The continuation of the case means that the specific allegations will be examined further, rather than proven. The outcome will determine whether the 2018 agreement actually had an impact on prices and choice for British consumers.
