Gutmann vs Apple Inc.

This case involved an application by Apple Inc. for permission to appeal against the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to certify collective proceedings brought by Justin Gutmann on behalf of iPhone users.

TLDR:

• Apple sought to appeal the CAT's decision to certify a class action.
• The case revolves around alleged performance issues in iPhone 6, SE, and 7 models.
• Apple's appeal was partially granted, with the court allowing further amendments to the claim form.
• The CAT's decision to allow the case to proceed to trial was upheld.

The case arose from claims that Apple concealed performance issues in certain iPhone models and introduced a software update that throttled performance without informing users. Justin Gutmann, acting as the Proposed Class Representative (PCR), sought to bring collective proceedings on behalf of affected consumers.

Gutmann alleged that Apple's actions constituted an abuse of its dominant market position, leading to consumer detriment. The CAT had certified the proceedings, allowing the case to move forward, but Apple sought to overturn this decision.

Apple's appeal focused on four grounds: the lack of primary facts supporting the claim, the alleged lack of evidence for consumer detriment, the continuation of the claim post-December 2017, and the suitability of Gutmann as the class representative.

The Court of Appeal found that while the CAT had correctly identified issues with the primary facts of the claim, it was appropriate to allow the PCR to amend the claim form to address these concerns. The court deferred its final decision on this ground, giving Gutmann 21 days to propose suitable amendments.

On the second ground, the court upheld the CAT's decision, noting that further evidence might emerge during the trial to support the PCR's claims. The CAT's approach to case management was deemed appropriate.

The third ground of appeal, concerning the continuation of the claim after Apple's December 2017 announcement, was rejected. The court agreed with the CAT that further inquiry was needed to determine the impact of the announcement on consumers.

Finally, the court dismissed the fourth ground, affirming that Gutmann was a suitable class representative despite not being an iPhone user. The CAT's broad discretion in such matters was upheld.

Legal representatives: Daniel Piccinin KC and Lucinda Cunningham (instructed by Covington & Burling LLP) for the Appellants, Philip Moser KC and Natalie Nguyen (instructed by Charles Lyndon Limited) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Green, Lord Justice Snowden

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 702