Two Dutch claim vehicles brought class actions under the Act on Redress of Mass Damage in a Collective Action (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in een collectieve actie, WAMCA) before the Amsterdam District Court, seeking a declaration that Apple acts unlawfully towards users of apps running on iOS and purchased via the Dutch version of the App Store, and an order for compensation for the damage allegedly caused to those users, on the basis that Apple abuses a dominant position in the distribution of apps for Apple devices through anticompetitive conduct.
Apple argued that the Amsterdam District Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast because no harmful event occurred in the Netherlands, and that if Article 7(2) Brussel I Recast confers international jurisdiction, its jurisdiction should be limited to users who purchased apps in the Amsterdam Court district.
Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast applicable to class actions based on abuse of dominant position
According to settled case law, Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast (place where the harmful event occurred) covers both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred. This rule of special jurisdiction must be interpreted independently and strictly, and applies to claims for damages caused by an abuse of a dominant position. The CJEU held that Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast confers international and territorial jurisdiction on the courts of the place where the damage occurred, including for representative actions brought by qualified entities on behalf of unidentified but identifiable users.
Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast determines international and territorial jurisdiction of a representative action based on abuse of dominant position in its entirety
The CJEU confirmed that the Amsterdam District Court has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast, but the remaining question was whether that jurisdiction is confined to its own district or extends to other Dutch district courts for actions involving users domiciled or having their registered office in the Netherlands but outside the Amsterdam District Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
First, for the purpose of determining the place where the damage occurred, under Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast, the virtual space constituted by the defendants in the Netherlands by creating the App Store NL was considered to correspond to the entire territory of the Netherlands. Second, the CJEU noted that under the Dutch collective action system (WAMCA) applicants exercise their own right to represent and defend the collective interests of unidentified but identifiable users who purchase apps in the App Store NL using the Apple ID associated with the Netherlands and the majority of whom are likely to be domiciled in the Netherlands. In these circumstances, the court seised need not identify, for each alleged victim, the precise place where damage may have been suffered. The fact that it is impossible to determine, for each victim of the anticompetitive conduct, the precise place where the damage occurred does not mean that Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast is inapplicable. This is because that place corresponds to a well-defined geographical area: the entire territory of the Member State in which the market was affected by such conduct.
The CJEU concluded that any court having substantive jurisdiction to hear a representative action brought by an entity, such as the applicants, for damages based on anticompetitive conduct would have international jurisdiction (albeit limited to the Netherlands) and territorial jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast to hear that action in its entirety. As the App Store NL targets the Dutch market, it was therefore predictable that a representative action for damages in respect of purchases made on that platform would be brought before any Dutch court having substantive jurisdiction. That outcome was considered to align with the requirements of the sound administration of justice. The CJEU further recognised that actions for damages arising from infringements of competition law typically involve complex factual and economic assessments. Consolidating individual claims can therefore facilitate both the exercise of the right to compensation by victims and the task of the court seised. This CJEU decision seems to be focused on competition litigation cases and can therefore not easily be extrapolated to other collective actions. This uncertainty is likely to fuel further litigation and possible new CJEU cases.
Accordingly, the Amsterdam District Court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear the representative actions against Apple for all Dutch customers and not only for those living in Amsterdam.
Houthoff Class Action Survey & Morais Leitão & Houthoff Class Actions seminar
Five years after our first Class Action Survey in 2019, we published an extensive update in 2024 in partnership with 11 leading law firms, covering key trends in 12 jurisdictions. As we begin 2026, we are expanding the survey further, introducing a concise executive version and extending its scope to 16 jurisdictions and law firms.
We will share these updates, including emerging trends and recent developments, in stages leading up to the Morais Leitão & Houthoff Class Actions Seminar on 13 February in Lisbon, hosted at the offices of Morais Leitão. The seminar will present the full set of insights and is tailored for legal counsels and board members of corporations that could potentially be targeted by class actions. Participation is by invitation only. To secure your invitation, please contact Isabella Wijnberg.