Class Representative in Ennis v Apple — Competition Appeals Tribunal

The litigation funding industry has evolved dramatically over the past 25 years, and nowhere has this evolution been more visible than in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT). At the heart of one of the most significant competition law cases currently before the CAT stands Dr. Sean F. Ennis, an expert on management, strategy and economic policy whose unique background spans the US Department of Justice, the European Commission, the OECD, and academia. As the class representative in Ennis v. Apple—a case representing UK app developers allegedly overcharged through Apple’s App Store practices—Dr. Ennis brings not only extensive expertise in competition policy but also the perspective of someone who has founded three companies and understands the practical realities of business.

In this wide-ranging discussion with Editor Nick Rowles-Davies, Dr. Ennis reflects on recent landmark developments in UK collective proceedings, the challenges and opportunities within the regime, and what the future holds for competition law enforcement in Britain.

This interview was conducted on 3^rd December at IMN’s Litigation Finance International Conference 2025.

The Journey to Class Representative

Dr. Ennis’s path to becoming a class representative was shaped by decades of work at the intersection of law, economics, and policy. After 15 years at the OECD and time at the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, he is now a professor and director of an internationally recognized research centre on competition policy at the University of East Anglia.

“My entire career has focused on understanding how product markets work and the nexus between laws and businesses,” Dr. Ennis explains. When he observed Apple’s App Store practices—charging commissions of up to 30% to UK developers—he recognized an opportunity to apply his expertise to practical effect. “Individual developers simply cannot afford to take on Apple alone. The collective proceedings regime gives them a voice.”

The Historic Kent v Apple Judgment

The conversation naturally turns to the landmark Kent v Apple judgment delivered on 23 October 2025. In what Dr. Ennis describes as an “absolutely historic” decision, the CAT found that Apple had abused its dominant position, determining that 36 million UK consumers are owed approximately £1.5 billion. This marked the first collective action under section 47B of the Competition Act to succeed at trial.

“The Kent judgment demonstrates that the CAT regime works and that the CAT can agree with the core legal arguments put forward by plaintiffs,” Dr. Ennis notes. The Tribunal found that Apple’s 30% commission was excessive and unfair, concluding that a fair rate would have been around 17.5%. “This decision shows that no business is above being held accountable when they abuse their market power.”

The implications extend directly to Dr. Ennis’s own case. While Kent represented consumers who bought apps, Ennis v Apple represents the developers who create those apps. “They’re two sides of the same coin,” he explains. “When Apple charges excessive commissions, developers either absorb the cost—reducing their ability to invest in innovation—or pass it on to consumers. Dr. Kent’s case proved the harm to consumers; my case seeks redress for the developers who were overcharged in the first place.”

The CAT has chosen to manage these cases separately, with the Ennis trial scheduled for late 2027.

The Value of Collective Proceedings

The opt-out collective proceedings regime was introduced in 2015, though it took until the Supreme Court’s Merricks judgment in 2020 to gain real momentum. Dr. Ennis describes himself as a “fan” of the CAT, and his reasoning is rooted in fundamental principles of access to justice.

“The regime addresses a fundamental access-to-justice problem,” he argues. “When a company engages in anticompetitive behaviour, it often harms many people or businesses by a small amount each. No individual can afford to sue. Without collective proceedings, these wrongs go unredressed—the wrongdoer keeps its ill-gotten gains.”

Since Brexit, the UK has assumed greater responsibility for enforcing competition law domestically, making the regime even more critical. The CAT process means that illegal activities can be policed and punished, and those harmed can obtain redress.

The Dominance of Stand-alone Cases

When the regime was introduced, many observers expected it would be dominated by ‘follow-on’ cases—litigation following regulatory findings of infringement. The reality has proven quite different. Most cases, including Ennis v Apple, are ‘stand-alone’ actions brought independently of regulatory proceedings.

Dr. Ennis identifies several reasons for this trend. “First, regulatory enforcement is resource-constrained. The CMA and other authorities can only pursue so many cases. Second, regulators may be risk-averse, focusing on cases they’re most confident of winning. Third, there’s simply more anticompetitive behaviour out there than regulators can address.”

He draws a parallel to the United States, where approximately 90% of competition enforcement is private. “The UK is moving in a similar direction, though I would not expect it ever to reach this level, with private enforcement filling gaps left by public enforcement.”

Navigating the Challenges

Despite his support for the regime, Dr. Ennis acknowledges significant challenges. The certification process, while necessary to protect defendants from frivolous claims and ensure reasonable prospects of success, creates substantial barriers.

“The criteria are guided by a Supreme Court ruling, but the system is restrictive in that it means significant upfront costs before you even get to filing or trial,” he explains. “Litigation funders take on substantial risk—if the case fails, they lose their entire investment. Speaking as a business person and a business school professional, they need to feel confident of a reasonable return for that risk.”

The 2023 PACCAR judgment created significant uncertainty about funding arrangements, though recent Court of Appeal decisions have provided some clarity. “We need a regime that balances protecting defendants with ensuring claimants can access justice,” Dr. Ennis emphasizes.

The Government Review and Future Direction

In August 2025, the Department for Business and Trade launched a review of the collective actions regime, with a call for evidence that closed in October. Some claimant lawyers have expressed concern about the timing and tone of this review, fearing potential restrictions.

Dr. Ennis takes a measured view. “I understand the concern. But I believe the review is happening rather on the early side. The regime is very young, and precedent is developing. Courts generally can be relied on to do a good job.” He notes that the regime has only really been operational since the Merricks Supreme Court decision in 2020, and the first trials are only now producing results.

“My general impression is that the government wants to understand how it’s working before making major changes. That strikes me as sensible—though I hope they don’t overreact to pressure from large corporate defendants who may be uncomfortable with accountability.”

The Interplay of Regulation and Private Enforcement

The CMA recently designated Apple as having ‘Strategic Market Status’ under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Dr. Ennis sees this regulatory action as complementary to, rather than competing with, private enforcement.

“The CMA’s Strategic Market Status designation enables forward-looking regulation—the CMA can impose requirements on Apple to increase competition. But that’s prospective. Private enforcement seeks compensation for past harm.” He points to the convergence of evidence: “The EU’s Spotify decision, the Kent judgment, and various international regulatory findings all point in the same direction: Apple’s App Store practices have been problematic from the perspective of various legal regimes.”

Together, regulatory action and private enforcement create stronger incentives for compliance.

The Next Decade

Ten years after the regime’s introduction, the UK has witnessed the first successful trial in Kent, the first major settlement in Merricks, and the first claim dismissed on the merits in Le Patourel v BT. Looking forward another decade, Dr. Ennis anticipates significant growth.

“I think we’ll see significant growth in case law. The pipeline of cases is substantial—claims against Google, Amazon, Meta, and others are progressing. As more cases reach trial and settlement, there’ll be greater certainty about what works.” He expects to see larger, more sophisticated claims, and possibly expansion beyond competition law into other areas.

“The UK could become a leading jurisdiction for collective redress in Europe, particularly post-Brexit. But that depends on maintaining a balanced regime that doesn’t scare off funders or deter legitimate claims.”

He offers a cautionary note to large corporate defendants: “To the extent that the UK does not become a go-to jurisdiction, I suspect that will, ironically, be worse for large defendants than otherwise, because cases may head to other jurisdictions potentially with less predictable approaches to the law. Be careful what you wish for, would be my main advice to the large corporations.”

A Message to App Developers

As our conversation draws to a close, Dr. Ennis addresses UK app developers directly. Ennis v Apple is an opt-out case, meaning UK-domiciled developers are automatically included unless they choose to opt out.

“Participating costs nothing—our funding arrangements mean developers bear no financial risk. If we succeed, they’ll receive compensation for the excessive commissions they’ve paid. If we don’t succeed, they’ve lost nothing.”

But for Dr. Ennis, the case represents something larger than individual compensation. “This case is about holding dominant platforms accountable. It’s about ensuring that the app economy works fairly for creators, not just gatekeepers.”

Conclusion

Dr. Sean Ennis’s journey from economist and policy expert to class representative exemplifies the practical application of decades of competition law expertise. His insights reveal a collective proceedings regime that, while young and still evolving, has proven its capacity to deliver justice in cases where individual action would be impossible. The Kent v Apple judgment has validated the regime’s potential, demonstrating that even the most powerful technology companies can be held accountable for anticompetitive conduct.

As the UK navigates post-Brexit competition enforcement and grapples with the challenges posed by dominant digital platforms, the role of collective proceedings will only grow in importance. The balance between protecting defendants from frivolous claims and ensuring meaningful access to justice for claimants remains delicate. Yet, as Dr. Ennis’s case progresses toward trial in 2027, it stands as a testament to the principle that markets work best when competition law is vigorously enforced—not just by regulators, but by those directly affected by anticompetitive practices.

The next decade of UK competition law enforcement promises to be transformative. If Dr. Ennis’s optimism proves well-founded, Britain will emerge as a leading jurisdiction for collective redress, where innovation thrives not despite rigorous enforcement, but because of it. For the thousands of app developers represented in Ennis v Apple, that future cannot come soon enough.