Where does the court have jurisdiction in cases of mass damage caused by Big Tech?

Have you, as a consumer or business, suffered damage as a result of anti-competitive behavior on an online platform? On 2 December 2025 (C-34/24) the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down an important ruling that significantly lowers the threshold for collective actions against tech giants. Essentially, the Court ruled that when an online platform specifically targets a Member State, any court with jurisdiction in that country may hear the entire claim, regardless of where the individual users reside.

The facts and procedural context

The case that led to this ruling revolves around a conflict between Apple and two interest groups (Dutch foundations) that defend the rights of app users and developers.

The core of the dispute is Apple's alleged abuse of its dominant position. The foundations claim that Apple charges excessive commissions of 15% to 30% on purchases in the App Store.Because users and developers are forced to use the App Store to install apps on iPhones and iPads, this would lead to higher prices and thus harm end users.

The legal stumbling block was the jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court. Apple disputed that the Dutch court had jurisdiction to hear claims from victims who did not live in the court's district. Apple argued that the “damaging event” did not specifically take place in Amsterdam.

The main question referred to the Court of Justice was how to determine the place of damage in the context of online purchases under the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012), to determine which court has jurisdiction.

The decision of the Court of Justice

In its ruling of December 2, 2025, the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) provided clarity in favor of aggrieved consumers.

The decision is based on the following pillars:

• Virtual space is equivalent to national territory: The Court found that the App Store was specifically designed for the national market (in this case, the “NL App Store”), using the local language and targeting users with a local Apple ID. The virtual space where the purchases took place therefore corresponds to the entire territory of the Member State.
• Centralization of the claim: Since the damage is deemed to have occurred throughout the entire territory, any court that has jurisdiction under national law also has territorial jurisdiction to hear the entire representative claim.
• No fragmentation: It is not necessary to ascertain the exact location of each individual, unidentified consumer at the time of purchase. This prevents a mass claim from being fragmented across different local courts, which would be detrimental to the proper administration of justice.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is important for the interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 in the digital age.

Autonomous interpretation of ‘place of the harmful event’

In European procedural law, the main rule is that a person is summoned to appear before the court of their place of residence (Article 4 of the Regulation). Article 7(2) offers an alternative for tort: the court of the place where the harmful event occurred. This concept encompasses both the place of the act and the place where the damage occurred (the so-called Beer-ruling, confirmed in this case).

Deviation from the ‘Mosaic Theory’?

Traditionally, when damage occurs in multiple locations, jurisdiction can become fragmented (the ‘mosaic theory’), with a local court having jurisdiction only for damage in its area. In this ruling, the Court opts for a pragmatic approach to collective actions. By equating the “virtual market” with the entire country, the Court creates a basis for the concentration of jurisdiction.

This is in line with the objectives of the Regulation:

1. Proximity: The court in the Member State where the market has been disrupted is best placed to assess the damage.
2. Predictability: A platform operator that focuses specifically on a country (through language, payment methods, storefronts) can reasonably expect to be sued there before any competent court.

This is extremely relevant for Belgian legal practice. It confirms that in the case of infringements via digital platforms targeting Belgium (e.g., a “.be” version or a Belgian institution in an app), Belgian courts have international jurisdiction over the entire Belgian group of victims.

What this specifically means

This ruling has direct consequences for various actors in the legal field:

For consumers and interest groups

The threshold for bringing a class action lawsuit against foreign tech giants has been lowered. You no longer need to worry about complex discussions about which local court has jurisdiction over which group of victims. As long as the platform targets the country where you live, the case can be heard there centrally. This makes procedures more efficient and affordable.

For digital platforms and online stores

Companies offering digital services across borders must be aware of their exposure. If you offer a specific storefront or interface for a Member State (e.g., Belgium), you are liable to claims in any materially competent court in that country for damages suffered by all users in that country. The argument that the purchase technically took place in Ireland or the US no longer holds water if the market is defined nationally.

For the legal profession

This ruling provides a powerful weapon in the fight against procedural delaying tactics employed by large defendants. In cases involving competition law and consumer law, it is now possible to proceed more quickly to the substance of the case, without years of litigation over territorial jurisdiction.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

When is a foreign online store or app store ‘targeted’ at a Member State?
The Court considers objective factors. In this case, these included the use of the country's language, a storefront specifically tailored to the country (NL App Store), and the requirement for a local account (Apple ID). If a platform exhibits these characteristics, the virtual place of purchase coincides with the national territory.

As a Belgian consumer, can I now also sue Apple in Belgium?
Yes, this ruling sets a precedent for the entire EU. If it can be demonstrated that Apple (or another platform) specifically targets the Belgian market (which is likely given the specific Belgian App Store), Belgian courts and tribunals have jurisdiction to hear claims for damages from Belgian users.

Does this ruling apply only to Apple?
No. Although the case was brought against Apple, the interpretation of the regulation is generally applicable. It applies to all operators of online platforms that target a specific Member State and are accused of anti-competitive behavior or other unlawful acts there.

Conclusion

The ruling of December 2, 2025 marks an important moment for consumer protection in the digital economy. The Court of Justice breaks through the procedural barriers that Big Tech companies often erect. By equating the place of damage in a virtual store with the entire national territory, the way is paved for effective mass damage claims.