Dutch consumers have won a major procedural victory in their long-running fight over Apple’s app store fees, after Europe’s highest court ruled that the case can be heard in the Netherlands.

The judgment from the EU’s Court of Justice on Tuesday removes a key obstacle and allows a collective lawsuit to move forward. The court concluded that when a company’s pricing practices affect consumers across an entire national market, it cannot avoid scrutiny by pointing to technical jurisdictional rules.

The Luxembourg judges found that Apple’s conduct, which allegedly inflated prices for app purchases and in-app transactions in the Dutch version of its App Store, created nationwide harm. As a result, they said the Netherlands should be treated as a single place where the damage occurred.

This finding means one Dutch court can oversee the case on behalf of all affected users. The decision avoids a patchwork of local lawsuits and makes it easier for consumers to pursue collective redress.

Two Amsterdam-based groups, Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims, lodged the suit in 2022 on behalf of Dutch iPhone and iPad users. They argue that Apple used its control over the Dutch App Store to charge developers commissions of up to 30 per cent, a cost they say was ultimately passed on to consumers.

Apple challenged the filing, saying Dutch courts were the wrong venue. The company maintained that any harm took place in Ireland, where its European headquarters is located, and added that within the Netherlands only regional courts where consumers made purchases should hear the claims.

Uncertain how to proceed, the Amsterdam District Court asked the EU judges to clarify how jurisdiction should work in such cases. The central question was whether a nationwide pricing policy counts as harm occurring across the entire country or only in specific localities.

The EU court sided firmly with the consumer groups. It highlighted that Apple’s App Store for the Netherlands is a fully localized service where users pay in euros through Dutch banks, which signals that the platform is directed at the entire Dutch market. Because of that, the alleged overcharge can be treated as occurring within Dutch territory, regardless of the city or region where users completed their purchases.

The court said this approach avoids a fragmented system in which claims would need to be filed across multiple courts. Instead, its ruling supports a unified process that is both efficient and consistent for consumers pursuing collective actions.

Legal experts noted that the judgment helps define where harm occurs for national online platforms but stops short of offering guidance for platforms that operate across multiple countries.

Gilles Cuniberti, professor at the University of Luxembourg, observed that this was relatively straightforward because Apple’s Dutch App Store serves a single national market. He pointed out that harder questions remain for platforms that span several jurisdictions.

Others emphasized that the ruling strengthens tools for collective redress in Europe while exposing gaps in the EU’s existing procedural rules. Geert van Calster, professor of private international law at KU Leuven, said centralizing claims in one court is practical for cases involving large tech companies but suggested the court may have pushed the boundaries of current EU law. He argued that broader reforms should come from legislators.

Xandra Kramer, professor of private law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, described the ruling as a significant milestone for consumer class actions. She noted that without it, consumer groups would be forced to file cases in multiple Dutch courts, making coordinated action almost unworkable.

Apple said it disagreed with the ruling and stressed that it addressed jurisdiction only. The company said it would continue defending its position as the lawsuit advances.

The case now returns to the Amsterdam District Court, which will resume assessing whether Apple must face the collective suit on its substance. The outcome could have sweeping implications for how consumer disputes involving digital platforms are handled across Europe.