IP&IT Analysis: This was Samsung’s application for a declaration that it does not infringe Apple’s Community Registered Design (RCD) in its dealings with the Galaxy tablets; Apple responded with a counterclaim of infringement. Laura Thompson, Solicitor and member of Lexis®PSL IP & IT, discusses the case and the impact for lawyers.

Law360: Apple defeated claims that it discriminated against a female Spanish employee by ordering her to return to her London-based role as part of a post-pandemic policy, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Law360: Apple confirmed 21 June 2024 that the tech giant isn't planning on releasing new AI features in the EU this year due to 'regulatory uncertainties' involving the EU's new Digital Markets Act (EU DMA) and the potential security risks that complying with the DMA could pose to Apple users.

MLex: Apple, Google and Meta Platforms are the targets of the first formal EU probes over compliance with the new Digital Markets Act (DMA). The European Commission believes measures related to choice screens, self-preferencing, ‘anti-sterring’ rules in apps, and Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model may be at odds with the law against digital gatekeepers’ power. It is also taking investigative steps against Apple’s fee structure for its App Store and Amazon’s marketplace raking to ‘clarify’ whether those changes are compliant.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 25 July 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into restrictive agreements in the e-books sector (case number COMP/39.847). Latest developments Commitments offered by Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple were accepted by the European Commission on 13 December 2012 and commitments offered by Penguin were accepted by the Commission on 25 July 2013. The five publishers have agreed to terminate all existing agency agreements that include price restrictions and a price MFN clause; they have

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected arguments by Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Sony on 4 July 2025 that widely-used funding agreements which calculate a funder's fee by a multiple are unenforceable in UK class action claims.

Law360, London: Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Sony told the Court of Appeal that funding agreements driving multiple competition class action claims are unlawful and unenforceable.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 September 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by Apple of Shazam (Case M.8788). The transaction raises non-horizontal concerns in relation to music streaming services. The transaction did not meet the EU Merger Regulation thresholds, and was instead referred to the Commission under Article 22. Latest developments On 6 September 2018, the Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally following an in-depth phase II review. Parties Apple is a US-based global technology company which designs, manufactures and sells mobile communication, media devices, portable digital music players and personal computers. It also sells and delivers digital content online through the ‘iTunes Store‘, the ‘App Store‘, ‘iBookstore‘ as well as ‘Mac App Store‘. Of particular relevance to this transaction, Apple offers the music streaming service Apple Music’, which in the last three years has become the second largest music streaming service provider in Europe. Shazam is a UK-based company that

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal ruled on 16 April 2025 that litigation-funders backing a £853m collective action against Apple over iPhone batteries could be paid in advance of class members, concluding there was 'nothing wrong' with a financing agreement that states this.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides information on the data protection regime before 25 May 2018 and reflects the position under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). This Practice Note is for background information only and is not maintained. This Practice Note concerns the applicability and territorial scope of the DPA 1998. When considering the applicability of the DPA 1998, look at the following: • the type of data being processed—the DPA 1998 applies only to the processing of personal data, other data (eg statistical or other data which does not relate to an identifiable individual) is not covered • where the data controller is established—the DPA 1998 applies only to data controllers who are established in the UK and who process personal data in the context of that establishment. This covers UK based data controllers who process data connected to a UK business even if technically the processing takes place overseas (eg using servers located in another country) • the equipment/location of processing—where a non-UK, non-EEA data controller processes personal

MLex: With core parts of the European Artificial Intelligence Act now not far off starting to apply, industry players and legal practitioners are grappling with questions about whether, when and how the EU rulebook will apply to their AI models and systems. For example: What is the AI Act’s applicability during the development phase, what extraterritorial effects might there be, how are key legal concepts to be interpreted, and what’s the scope of the scientific research and development exemption?

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Australia has held that a statutory proportionate liability regime applies to arbitrations that are subject to the substantive law of the state, unless excluded by party agreement. The regime (common to all Australian jurisdictions) limits a respondent’s liability for tortious, contractual, and statutory damages to that respondent’s contribution to the loss, and leaves the claimant to sue other contributors. The claimant in this case argued unsuccessfully that the regime could not be applied to arbitration because it could not join the other contributors to the arbitration. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM, barrister at William Forster Chambers.