App Store Claims: Another Important Link to the CJEU’s Chain in Private Enforcement Cases ENFORCEMENT CASES

In this post for The Platform Law Blog, authors Ruben Elkerbout & Sam Wolters explain how the CJEU’s December 2025 ruling in App Store Claims clarifies jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis for digital antitrust cases. The case arose from a Dutch collective action under the WAMCA regime alleging that Apple abused its dominance by charging excessive commissions on the Dutch App Store. Because the alleged harm occurred in a digital “virtual space” without a fixed physical location, the Court was asked to determine both international and territorial jurisdiction.

The CJEU confirmed that Dutch courts had international jurisdiction, holding that the relevant “place where the damage occurred” was the Dutch App Store as a virtual space targeted exclusively at the Netherlands. Since that digital environment corresponded to the Dutch market, the damage was deemed to have been suffered in the Netherlands, regardless of users’ physical location at the time of purchase.

More significantly, the Court ruled that in WAMCA collective actions—where victims are not individually identified at the jurisdictional stage—any court within the affected Member State that has substantive jurisdiction may hear the claim. Because the alleged harm was confined to a single Member State, territorial jurisdiction could effectively be centralized within that state. The Court justified this approach on grounds of proximity, predictability, and the sound administration of justice, particularly in complex digital competition cases.

The authors note that while the ruling on international jurisdiction was expected, the broad approach to territorial jurisdiction departs from the Advocate General’s opinion and may facilitate forum selection in Dutch mass claims. They further observe that the Court’s reasoning—especially its emphasis on the unidentifiable nature of opt-out claimants—could extend beyond digital platforms to other WAMCA tort claims involving higher prices, and that it is regrettable the CJEU did not address the separate question of where the event giving rise to the damage occurred.

CONTINUE READING…