Collective action against Apple in the Netherlands: How the App Store’s ‘virtual space’ determines the competent court

On 16 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered an important judgment on the question of when victims in cartel damage cases may sue multiple group companies before a single court. The judgment is relevant for companies operating within international group structures, but also for parties seeking to recover damages following a competition infringement. Central to the case is the so-called ‘anchor defendant’: a defendant established in the Netherlands who is used to bring foreign co-defendants before the Dutch courts. The background The ruling stems from two Dutch proceedings before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The first case concerned claims for damages arising from the power cables cartel. The second case concerned claims for damages arising from an Italian cartel in the market for cardboard and packaging materials. In both proceedings, not only were companies summoned that were directly named in a cartel decision, but also other group companies. Some of these were established in the Netherlands and acted as anchor defendants. The claimants sought to bring all defendants jointly before the Dutch courts on the basis of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. That provision allows multiple defendants to be summoned before the court of the domicile of one of them, provided there is such a close connection between the claims that joint proceedings are desirable. The aim of this is to prevent different courts from issuing conflicting decisions. The judgment of the CJEU The CJEU has ruled that a close connection may also exist where the anchor defendant is not itself designated as a liable party in the cartel decision. The decisive factor is whether there are serious indications that the anchor defendant belongs to the same ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of competition law as the entities to which the infringement has been attributed. The concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU competition law is broader than that of a separate legal entity. Different companies within a group may together form a single economic unit. In such a case, liability for a cartel infringement may, under certain circumstances, extend throughout the group. The CJEU does emphasize, however, that Article 8(1) must not be used artificially. A claimant may therefore not sue a Dutch company with no genuine connection to the dispute solely to bring foreign parties to the Netherlands. However, when determining jurisdiction, the court does not need to assess in full whether the claim against the anchor defendant will succeed on its merits. This may only be relevant if that claim is manifestly unfounded or artificial. Finally, the CJEU confirms that Article 8(1) not only designates international jurisdiction but also the court with relative jurisdiction within the Member State: the court of the domicile of the defendant against whom the action is brought. A national referral to another competent court within the same Member State remains possible, provided that this does not undermine the effectiveness of the Regulation. Implications for practice This judgment strengthens the position of claimants in cartel damages cases. They are given greater scope to concentrate related claims against various group companies before a single court, even if the anchor defendant is not itself named in the cartel decision. For international groups, this means that group structures must be scrutinized. Even companies that are not themselves the addressees of a fine decision may be involved in civil proceedings if they form part of the same economic unit. The judgment thus once again underlines the importance of effective competition law compliance across the entire group. Do you have any questions regarding international jurisdiction or actions for damages? Please contact Arnout Koeman, Lennart Hoeksema or one of our other Competition and EU or Commercial Litigation specialists.

On Friday, January 9, 2026, the European Commission published the guidelines associated with the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”). In these guidelines, the European Commission clarifies various concepts in the FSR and explains the application of the FSR. This publication marks another step in making the FSR review process transparent.  Foreign Subsidies Regulation – how was it again? On July 12, 2023, the FSR became applicable. The FSR allows the European Commission to address distortions caused by foreign subsidies. The aim is to create a level-playing-field between all (EU and non-EU) companies operating within the EU. In a nutshell, the FSR contains three procedures: A reporting requirement for transactions involving subsidies given by third countries. This notification requirement applies if the target company, one of the merging parties or the joint venture has an EU turnover of at least EUR 500 million and these companies have received subsidies from third countries totaling more than EUR 50 million in the three years prior to the conclusion of the purchase agreement; A notification requirement for procurement involving subsidies from third countries. This notification requirement applies if the estimated contract value is at least EUR 250 million and the tenderer has received more than EUR 4 million in subsidies from third countries in the three years prior to the notification; and An ex-officio procedure by the European Commission, in which the European Commission launches an investigation on its own initiative. Since coming into force, the European Commission has launched a few investigations and has completed very few investigations as well as published decisions. As such, these guidelines, which the European Commission needed to draft according to the FSR, are also timely. They give (foreign) parties more legal certainty about their legal position under the FSR.    On what issues do the FSR guidelines provide more clarity? The comprehensive guidelines (48 pages) explain many parts of the FSR. A few points to highlight are the following: The assessment of market distortions caused by subsidies from third countries. The guidelines clarify that when the European Commission has concluded that a company has benefited from a foreign subsidy, the European Commission determines whether market distortion has occurred in two steps. First, the Commission examines whether the foreign subsidy strengthens the firm’s position in the EU market. Second, the European Commission examines the impact of the subsidy on competition in the market. In doing so, the European Commission analyzes whether the subsidy is responsible for a change in the company’s behavior and market dynamics to the detriment of other market parties. Assessment in tenders. The European Commission also provided further clarification on how it will assess market distortions caused by subsidies in tenders. In doing so, the European Commission will first examine whether the company adjusted the tender as a result of the subsidy. If so, the European Commission will assess whether the tender is unduly advantageous by comparing it with other comparable tenders and assessing the tender by comparing the conditions with the contracting authority’s own estimates. The balancing test. The balancing test can be applied by the European Commission on a grant-by-grant basis and takes into account the specific circumstances of the case. The guidelines explain how to weigh positive effects of a subsidy versus negative effects of a subsidy. In doing so, the European Commission will include only the positive effects that are specific to the subsidy. The test will also include the severity of the market distortion and the positive effects without the market distortion. An ex-officio investigation. The European Commission has provided more clarity in the guidelines on when it will initiate an ex-officio investigation. In doing so, the guidelines provide so-called safe harbor thresholds: for procurement procedures with a low value, subsidies under EUR 4 million and subsidies aimed at special circumstances (such as natural disasters), the European Commission will not start an investigation. What does this mean for your company? With the publication of these FSR Guidelines, the European Commission is taking the next step in the development of the FSR. These guidelines give companies and contracting authorities more clarity on how the European Commission assesses notifications. Importantly, the European Commission is also introducing safe harbor thresholds that will allow companies and contracting authorities to be more certain that the European Commission will not start an investigation. This will increase legal certainty. Do you have questions about the FSR or the guidelines discussed above? Please contact Arnout Koeman or Monika Beck or one of our other FSR and procurement law specialists.

The transition to a sustainable economy requires not only innovation and decisiveness, but also smart financing solutions. Two instruments that are playing an increasingly important role in this regard are green bonds and sustainability-linked loans (SLLs). In this blog, we explain what these forms of financing entail, what the legal considerations are and how we support our clients in this regard. What are green bonds? Green bonds are bonds whose proceeds are used exclusively for sustainable projects. Examples include the construction of a wind farm, making real estate more sustainable or investing in clean public transport. The issuer – often a company, bank or government – contractually commits to spending the money raised only on these green projects. A practical example: A Dutch developer issues a green bond to finance the construction of a new solar park. Investors, including local entrepreneurs and even private individuals, can thus be sure that their money is contributing to the (local) energy transition. Each year, the developer reports on progress and environmental gains, such as the amount of green electricity generated. What are sustainability-linked loans (SLLs)? SLLs are loans in which the interest rate or other conditions are linked to the borrower’s achievement of sustainability targets. What makes them special is that the borrowed money can be spent freely, but the borrower commits to achieving specific ESG targets, such as reducing CO2 emissions or increasing the proportion of women in management. Real-life example: An international manufacturing company takes out an SLL with a bank. The loan agreement stipulates that the interest rate will fall by 0.2% if the company manages to reduce its CO2 emissions by 15% within three years. If the target is not achieved, the interest rate will increase. This creates a financial incentive to do business sustainably. Legal considerations With both forms of financing, it is essential to set out the agreements clearly and in a verifiable manner. This includes: Clear definitions of ‘green’ projects or KPIs; Independent assessment and reporting; Consequences of not achieving the targets; Transparency towards investors and regulators. Our ESG team The lawyers in our ESG team are happy to advise on drafting and assessing these contracts, structuring the financing and complying with the increasingly stringent regulations in the field of sustainability. Our ESG project team combines in-depth knowledge of financing law with up-to-date insights into sustainability legislation. We advise on setting up green bonds and SLLs, from the initial exploration to closing and post-closing reporting. Want to know more? Would you like to know what green bonds or SLLs can do for your organisation, or do you have questions about the legal aspects? Feel free to contact our ESG project team. We are happy to work with you to find sustainable financing solutions that work in practice.

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has recently issued a clear call to companies in the food sector: review and improve your sustainability claims. This call is not optional. The ACM emphasizes that it will actively monitor compliance with the rules and, if necessary, take enforcement action. What does this mean for companies in the food sector? Why this call? Sustainability claims are playing an increasingly significant role in the marketing of food products. Consumers want to make informed choices and consider sustainability in their purchasing decisions. However, the ACM has observed that many claims in the food sector are unclear. This not only undermines consumer trust but can also lead to unfair competition among companies. For example, the ACM notes that it is often unclear what labels, logos, and certifications represent or what a sustainability claim specifically entails. The ACM has previously scrutinized sustainability claims in other sectors, such as clothing, energy, and transportation. Now, it is the food sector’s turn. The Sustainability Claims Guidelines: the basis for compliance The ACM directs companies to its updated Sustainability Claims Guidelines (2023). These guidelines outline five key rules that sustainability claims must adhere to: Use clear, specific, and complete sustainability claims; Substantiate sustainability claims with facts and keep them up to date; Make fair comparisons with other products or competitors; Describe future sustainability ambitions in concrete and measurable terms; Ensure that visual claims and certifications are helpful and not misleading. What’s at stake? The ACM has announced that it will actively check whether companies have adjusted their sustainability claims following this call. If claims do not comply, the ACM has stated that it may take enforcement action. Companies using sustainability claims that do not meet the Sustainability Claims Guidelines may face fines or orders subject to penalty payments. What can your company do? To avoid risks and ensure compliance with the law, it is essential for companies to take action now. A few practical tips: Inventory Your Sustainability Claims. Map out all the claims you use on products, in advertisements, and in stores; Assess Your Claims Against the Sustainability Claims Guidelines. Verify whether your claims comply with the ACM’s five key rules as outlined in the Sustainability Claims Guidelines; Collaborate with Experts. Have your claims reviewed both legally and substantively by specialists. This can help identify and mitigate risks; Communicate Transparently. Ensure that your claims are understandable to consumers and supported by clear information; Stay Up-to-Date. Closely monitor developments in laws and regulations regarding sustainability claims. Conclusion The ACM’s call is a clear warning to the food sector: ensure that your sustainability claims are honest, clear, and substantiated. If not, the ACM may proceed with enforcement. Do you need assistance in reviewing or adjusting your sustainability claims? We are happy to help you mitigate risks and bring your claims into compliance with the law. Feel free to contact Arnout Koeman or one of our other specialists.

On 14 March 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court (‘Hoge Raad’) issued an important ruling in the context of the Act on the Resolution of Mass Claims in Collective Actions (“WAMCA”) (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:388). One of the key questions the Supreme Court addressed was whether an extension of the so-called three-month period for serving a writ of summons, pursuant to Article 1018d(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (“Rv”), has general effect or applies only to the legal entity that requested the extension. The Supreme Court’s decision is clear: an extension of the three-month period does not have general effect—it applies only to the legal entity that requested it. Background of the Case The case concerns collective claims brought by various foundations against Apple. Apple was summoned on October 4, 2021, by the Right to Consumer Justice Foundation (“Stichting RCJ”). Pursuant to Article 1018d(1) Rv, other foundations wishing to file a similar collective claim had three months to do so – until January 4, 2022, in this case. Article 1018d(2) Rv provides that a court may extend this three-month period upon request by another legal entity seeking to initiate collective proceedings. In this case, the court granted an extension of three additional months at the request of another foundation, the App Stores Claims Foundation (“Stichting ASC”), extending the deadline to April 4, 2022. This procedural decision was published in the central register for collective claims on November 29, 2021. Stichting ASC summoned Apple within this extended period. Another foundation, the Consumer Competition Claims Foundation (“Stichting CCC”), also summoned Apple within the extended period – on March 31, 2022. However, this meant that Stichting CCC had issued its writ of summons outside the original three-month period. The question in the proceedings was whether Stichting CCC could be deemed admissible in its collective claims, given that its summons was served after the initial three-month period had expired. At first instance, the court declared Stichting CCC inadmissible because it had not served its writ of summons within the statutory three-month period. The court ruled that an extension of the period under Article 1018d(2) Rv does not have general effect—the extension granted to Stichting ASC applied only to Stichting ASC. Stichting CCC disagreed and an appeal was files directly with the Supreme Court (‘sprongcassatie’). Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. It confirmed that an extension of the three-month period under Article 1018d(2) Rv does not have general effect. The Supreme Court noted that, according to the legislative history of the WAMCA, a court’s decision on an extension request must be tailored to the specific circumstances of the legal entity making the request. This, according to the Supreme Court, implies that an extension applies solely to the requesting legal entity and does not have a general effect. The Supreme Court also pointed out that this interpretation aligns with the absence of a requirement for extension decisions to be registered in the central register for collective claims. Conclusion For foundations seeking to initiate similar collective claims, it is crucial to closely monitor the collective claims published in the central register for collective claims. While it is understandable that Stichting CCC also considered the court’s procedural decision granting an extension to Stichting ASC, the publication of a summary of the initial summons in the central register remains decisive for determining the start of the three-month period. If an organization needs more than three months to prepare its case, it must submit a reasoned request for an extension of the three-month period to the court within one month. Organizations cannot rely on procedural decisions regarding extensions granted to other foundations that may be published in the central register for collective claims. Questions about the WAMCA? Please contact Lennart Hoeksema, Arnout Koeman or one of our other WAMCA specialists.

The Authority for Consumers & Markets (“ACM“) recently announced its 2025 agenda (link). This agenda outlines the regulator’s priorities and focus areas for the coming years. Among other things, the ACM wishes to get ready for the challenges of our time and has defined three focus areas in that context. There are also plans to conduct market surveys in certain sectors. In the blog below, you can read what the ACM plans to do in the coming year, and what this could mean for you. Focus points voor 2025 This year, the ACM will focus on three key societal themes. In this way, the ACM wishes to ensure the healthy functioning of the markets concerned, and protect consumers’ interests in these rapidly developing themes. This year’s focus is on: Promoting an open and fair digital economy; Accelerating the energy transition; and Developing a more sustainable economy. The focus points for 2025 are a continuation of the focus work for 2024 (link). The focus from 2024 will be further pursued by more specific and targeted actions in 2025, with a stronger emphasis on digital innovation, energy flexibility and supply chain sustainability. Digital economy The Dutch economy is becoming increasingly digitised. This brings opportunities for economic growth and innovation on the one hand, but also risks on the other. The ACM will therefore pay attention to protecting consumers, especially vulnerable groups such as minors, while promoting economic growth and innovation. Areas of focus include: More oversight of big tech companies to prevent abuse of power; Taking action against abuse, deception and manipulation in online sales and gaming; and Strengthening data protection and consumer privacy rights. Energy transition The ACM is also committed to a rapid energy transition. The ACM aims for a reliable and sustainable energy supply for all people and businesses, now and in the future. In that context, the ACM plans, among other things, to reduce grid congestion and improve flexible grid use in the coming year. In addition, the ACM will promote renewable energy sources and design new regulatory methods for grid operators for future-proof infrastructure. Sustainable economy The ACM supports the development of a sustainable economy. The focus is on ensuring a level playing field between companies and providing clarity for companies when cooperating for sustainability purposes within competition rules. The ACM also wants to ensure that consumers can trust information on sustainability provided by companies. Market research In 2025, the ACM will launch five new general market reviews. Specifically, it will look at (i) veterinary practices, (ii) (digital) learning resources, (iii) computerised consumer prices, (iv) the fixed internet budget segment and (v) the development of the hydrogen market. In this way, the ACM can look at the (dis)functioning of these markets without concrete suspicions of violations. For instance, in the veterinary practice market, the issue is that many practices have become owned by investment funds in recent years, which may have led to sharp price increases. In its market studies, the ACM will use its new “Methodology for market research” published in February 2025 (link). In this document, the ACM describes the reasons for (the selection of) market investigations and the process of market investigations. What does this mean for you? The ACM’s 2025 agenda could be significant for several parties. For companies, it is likely that increased compliance requirements will be introduced, especially in the digital sector. More enforcement can also be expected with regard to dissemination of (online) disinformation on sustainability issues or misconduct related to online sales or gaming. Furthermore, the ACM wishes to encourage a healthy market and create more opportunities for companies to realise sustainability initiatives. Consumers can also expect some change. For instance, protecting consumer rights (especially within the focus areas) is one of the ACM’s priorities, and it intends to achieve healthy markets and price formation for consumers through its market investigations. Companies active in the sectors under investigation by the ACM, can expect to receive questions from the ACM. Do you have any questions on this topic? Or do you, as a company, need support in contacting the ACM? Feel free to contact Monika Beck or one of our other specialists.