The £480 Million Question

Introduction

In an era defined by ubiquitous connectivity, the smartphone has become an indispensable tool for modern life. The intricate technology that powers these devices, however, is the subject of a complex and often contentious web of patents and licensing agreements. At the heart of this ecosystem lies Qualcomm, a global leader in the design and manufacture of chipsets that are fundamental to mobile communication. The company's extensive patent portfolio has long been a cornerstone of its business model, generating substantial revenue through licensing fees paid by smartphone manufacturers.

This business model is now at the centre of a major legal confrontation in the United Kingdom. The consumer champion, Which?, is spearheading a collective action lawsuit against Qualcomm, alleging that the company has abused its market dominance to the detriment of millions of UK consumers. ^{32, 36} The lawsuit contends that Qualcomm's licensing practices have resulted in artificially high fees for smartphone manufacturers, such as Apple and Samsung, with these additional costs ultimately being passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices. ^{32, 35}

The claim, which covers Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased between 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2024, seeks to recover an estimated £480 million in damages. ^{34, 35} If successful, this could translate to an average compensation payment of around £17 for each affected individual. ^{34, 35} The trial, which began on 6 October 2025, is a landmark case for several reasons. ³⁴ It represents one of the most significant applications of the UK's opt-out collective action regime, a legal framework designed to provide a more accessible route to justice for large groups of consumers who have suffered loss as a result of anti-competitive behaviour. ^{4, 46}

The case will be heard in two stages. The initial phase will focus on establishing whether Qualcomm held a dominant market position and, crucially, whether it abused that position. ³⁴ Should Which? succeed in this first stage, a second trial will be convened to determine the extent of the damages and the specific amounts owed to consumers. ³⁴ This legal challenge does not exist in a vacuum; Qualcomm has faced similar scrutiny from competition authorities and in courts around the world, with varying outcomes. This global context provides a crucial backdrop to the proceedings in London and underscores the international significance of the issues at stake.

##

The Evolving Landscape of Collective Redress in the UK

The legal framework that allows for the *Which? v Qualcomm* case to proceed is a relatively recent development in the United Kingdom's legal system. Historically, the avenues for consumers to seek collective redress for losses caused by anti-competitive practices were limited and often impractical. The introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 marked a significant turning point, establishing a more robust and accessible regime for collective actions. ^{4, 44}

###

From Limited Options to a New Regime

Prior to the 2015 Act, the mechanisms for bringing group claims, such as Group Litigation Orders (GLOs), were primarily "opt-in" procedures. ²¹ This meant that each individual claimant had to actively choose to join the lawsuit, a requirement that often proved to be a significant barrier in cases where millions of consumers had each suffered a relatively small financial loss. The cost and complexity of identifying and recruiting a large number of claimants made many such actions unviable. The Enterprise Act 2002 did introduce a provision for "specified bodies" to bring representative actions on behalf of consumers, but this was a limited and rarely used mechanism. ³⁸

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 fundamentally altered this landscape by introducing an "opt-out" collective action regime for breaches of competition law. ^{44, 46} This new system allows a designated class representative, such as a consumer association, to bring a claim on behalf of an entire class of affected individuals, who are automatically included in the action unless they actively choose to opt out. ⁴ This shift was designed to overcome the problem of consumer inertia and to make it more feasible to pursue claims for widespread but individually small losses. ⁴⁴ The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was designated as the specialist venue for hearing these collective proceedings. ⁷

###

The Pivotal Role of Merricks v Mastercard

The development and interpretation of the new collective action regime have been significantly shaped by the landmark Supreme Court case of *Walter Merricks v Mastercard Incorporated*. This case, which involved a £14 billion claim on behalf of 46 million consumers over alleged unlawful credit card fees, provided crucial clarification on the criteria for certifying a collective action. ²⁶

Initially, the CAT had refused to certify the *Merricks* claim, citing difficulties in calculating the precise loss suffered by each individual consumer. ²⁷ However, in a seminal judgment in December 2020, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, establishing a lower and more permissive threshold for certification. ²⁶ The Court ruled that the complexity of assessing individual damages should not be a bar to a collective action proceeding, particularly where individual claims would be uneconomic to pursue. ²⁷ This judgment has been widely seen as opening the floodgates for more large-scale consumer class actions in the UK and has undoubtedly paved the way for the *Which? v Qualcomm* case to be certified. ⁴

###

The Mechanics of the Which? v Qualcomm Collective Action

The lawsuit against Qualcomm is a prime example of the post-*Merricks* landscape for collective redress. Which?, as the class representative, filed the claim in February 2021. ³⁶ The case then went through a certification process at the CAT, where the Tribunal had to be satisfied that the claims were suitable to be brought as a collective proceeding. On 17 May 2022, the CAT certified the claim, dismissing Qualcomm's arguments against certification and allowing the case to proceed on an opt-out basis. ^{6, 9}

This certification was a critical milestone, confirming that the Tribunal considered the claims to have a real prospect of success and that a collective action was the most appropriate way to resolve the dispute. The CAT's judgment in the certification hearing for *Which? v Qualcomm* highlighted that the economic model proposed by Which?'s experts for calculating the alleged overcharge was sufficiently robust to proceed to trial. ^{9, 14} The Tribunal rejected Qualcomm's contention that the methodology was not adequately grounded in fact, stating that such arguments were matters to be determined at the full trial. ^{9, 14}

The role of litigation funders is another important aspect of this new era of collective actions. These third-party entities provide the financial backing for these complex and costly legal battles in exchange for a share of any potential damages awarded. ² In the *Which? v Qualcomm* case, the litigation is being funded by Augusta Ventures, a prominent litigation funder in the UK. ⁹ The involvement of such funders is often crucial in enabling consumer groups to take on well-resourced corporate defendants. ² However, it also introduces a complex dynamic, as the financial interests of the funders must be balanced with the primary objective of securing redress for the class members. ²

##

The Core of the Dispute: Qualcomm's Business Practices Under Scrutiny

The legal challenge brought by Which? centres on allegations that Qualcomm has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour through its unique and powerful position in the smartphone industry. To fully comprehend the claims, it is necessary to delve into the intricacies of Qualcomm's business model, the nature of its patents, and the specific practices that are being contested.

###

Qualcomm's Dominance in the Smartphone Ecosystem

Qualcomm is a dominant force in two critical areas of the smartphone market: the production of modem chipsets and the licensing of patents essential for mobile communication. ⁴² Modem chipsets are the components that enable smartphones to connect to cellular networks, and Qualcomm has long been a leading supplier of these vital pieces of technology, particularly for high-end devices. ¹¹

Simultaneously, Qualcomm holds an extensive portfolio of patents that are considered "Standard Essential Patents" (SEPs). ¹¹ SEPs are patents that protect technology deemed essential for implementing a technical standard, such as 4G or 5G. ⁵ Any company that wants to manufacture a device compliant with these standards must use the technology covered by these SEPs. ⁵ This gives the holders of SEPs significant market power.

###

Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing

In recognition of the potential for SEP holders to abuse their market power, standard-setting organisations typically require them to commit to licensing their essential patents on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. ⁵ The FRAND commitment is intended to ensure that implementers of the standard can access the necessary technology at a fair price, thereby promoting competition and innovation. ⁵

However, the definition of what constitutes "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" is not precisely defined and is often the subject of intense negotiation and legal disputes. ⁵ The *Which? v Qualcomm* case is, at its heart, a dispute over whether Qualcomm's licensing practices adhere to the principles of FRAND and comply with competition law.

###

The "No License, No Chips" Policy

A central pillar of the case against Qualcomm is its "no license, no chips" policy. ^{33, 34} This policy dictates that Qualcomm will only sell its modem chipsets to smartphone manufacturers who have also taken a separate license for its portfolio of SEPs. ³³ Critics of this practice argue that it allows Qualcomm to leverage its dominance in the chipset market to charge excessive royalties for its patents. ³³

The argument put forward by Which? is that by tying the sale of its essential chipsets to the acceptance of its patent licensing terms, Qualcomm creates a situation where smartphone manufacturers have little choice but to agree to its demands, even if they believe the royalty rates are unfairly high. ¹⁶ This is because the alternative – being cut off from the supply of Qualcomm's market-leading chips – could be commercially devastating. ³³

###

Refusal to License to Competitors

Another key allegation is that Qualcomm has historically refused to license its SEPs to rival chipset manufacturers. ¹⁶ By licensing its patents only at the level of the end-product manufacturer (the Original Equipment Manufacturers, or OEMs, such as Apple and Samsung), Qualcomm is able to charge royalties based on the total value of the smartphone, rather than the much lower value of the individual chipset. ³¹

Which? contends that this practice harms competition in the chipset market by raising the costs for rival manufacturers. ¹⁶ If a smartphone manufacturer were to use a chipset from one of Qualcomm's competitors, they would still need to pay a license fee to Qualcomm for its SEPs. This, it is argued, creates an "anticompetitive surcharge" on the products of Qualcomm's rivals, making them less competitive. ¹⁸

###

The Alleged Impact on Consumers

The crux of the consumer claim is that these alleged anti-competitive practices have a direct financial impact on the public. The inflated royalty fees paid by manufacturers like Apple and Samsung are, according to Which?, passed on to consumers in the form of higher smartphone prices or, potentially, lower quality devices as manufacturers seek to absorb the additional costs. ^{32, 35}

To prove this, Which?'s legal team will rely on complex economic modelling. During the certification hearing, it was revealed that their expert's proposed methodology involves a "hedonic regression" analysis. ⁹ This is a statistical technique that attempts to isolate the impact of various factors on the price of a product. In this case, the model will be used to argue that changes in the cost of components, including the alleged overcharge from Qualcomm's licensing fees, have a demonstrable effect on the final retail price of smartphones. ¹⁴

Qualcomm, for its part, has consistently and vigorously denied these allegations, arguing that its licensing practices are lawful and have been a catalyst for innovation in the mobile industry. The company maintains that its business model is "chip-supplier neutral" and does not harm competition. ¹⁸

##

A Global Legal Battlefield: Qualcomm's Antitrust Challenges Worldwide

The legal action in the United Kingdom is not an isolated event but rather the latest chapter in a long history of antitrust scrutiny that Qualcomm has faced across the globe. Competition authorities and courts in numerous jurisdictions have investigated and challenged the company's business practices, leading to a series of high-stakes legal battles with mixed results. This international context is crucial for understanding the arguments being made in the UK case and the potential global ramifications of its outcome.

###

The United States: The Federal Trade Commission Lawsuit

One of the most significant legal challenges to Qualcomm's business model came from the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 2017, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm, alleging that its patent licensing practices violated US antitrust laws. ⁴⁶ The FTC's case mirrored many of the arguments now being put forward by Which?, focusing on the "no license, no chips" policy and the refusal to license SEPs to rival chipmakers. ⁴⁵

In May 2019, a US district court ruled in favour of the FTC, finding that Qualcomm had engaged in anti-competitive conduct and issuing a broad injunction that would have forced significant changes to its business model. ³³ However, this decision was overturned on appeal in August 2020 by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ²¹ The appellate court found that the FTC had failed to prove that Qualcomm's practices had caused anticompetitive harm in the chipset market. ¹⁸ This ruling was a major victory for Qualcomm and is a key piece of legal precedent that the company will likely draw upon in its defence against the Which? claim. ³⁹

###

The European Union: A Tale of Two Fines

The European Commission has also taken a keen interest in Qualcomm's conduct, imposing two substantial fines on the company for separate abuses of its dominant market position. In January 2018, the Commission fined Qualcomm €997 million for making "exclusivity payments" to Apple to ensure that only Qualcomm's chipsets were used in iPhones and iPads. ¹⁶ The Commission argued that these payments illegally shut out rivals, such as Intel. ²⁰ However, in a significant setback for the Commission, the EU's General Court annulled this fine in June 2022, citing procedural irregularities in the investigation. ²⁰

In a separate case, in July 2019, the Commission fined Qualcomm €242 million for engaging in predatory pricing between 2009 and 2011. ⁸ The Commission found that Qualcomm had sold certain chipsets below cost to key customers with the aim of driving a competitor, Icera, out of the market. ⁸ This decision was largely upheld by the EU General Court in September 2024, although the fine was slightly reduced. ² These cases demonstrate the European regulator's willingness to challenge Qualcomm's practices, even if its success has not been absolute.

###

Asia: Scrutiny in South Korea and Taiwan

Qualcomm's business practices have also come under fire in key Asian markets. In 2016, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) imposed a record fine of approximately $853 million on Qualcomm for violating competition law. ²⁵ The KFTC's allegations were similar to those in other jurisdictions, focusing on the company's abuse of its dominant position in relation to its patent licensing and chipset sales. ¹⁹ After a lengthy legal battle, South Korea's Supreme Court upheld the fine in April 2023, marking a significant victory for the regulator. ^{13, 28}

In Taiwan, the Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) fined Qualcomm approximately $773 million in 2017 for its anti-competitive licensing practices. ⁷ However, this dispute was resolved in 2018 through a settlement. ^{4, 9} As part of the agreement, Qualcomm paid a reduced amount of around $93 million and committed to certain good-faith negotiation practices with Taiwanese companies. ^{7, 10}

This global patchwork of legal challenges, with its varying and sometimes contradictory outcomes, highlights the complexity of applying competition law to the fast-moving and highly technical world of the smartphone industry. The proceedings in the UK will be closely watched to see how a British tribunal navigates these intricate issues, particularly in the post-Brexit legal environment. The decisions reached in other jurisdictions will undoubtedly be influential, but the UK court will ultimately have to forge its own path in interpreting the relevant domestic and European competition laws.

##

The Intricate Web of the Smartphone Supply Chain

To fully appreciate the dynamics at play in the *Which? v Qualcomm* lawsuit, it is essential to have a foundational understanding of the global and highly complex supply chain that brings a smartphone from its constituent raw materials to the hands of a consumer. This intricate network of suppliers, manufacturers, and intellectual property holders is the arena in which Qualcomm's alleged market dominance is exercised.

###

From Raw Materials to Advanced Components

The journey of a smartphone begins with the extraction of a wide array of raw materials from around the world. ²³ These include metals and minerals such as tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold, which are often sourced from regions with significant environmental and ethical challenges. ²³ These raw materials are then processed and transformed into the thousands of individual components that make up a modern smartphone. ³¹

This manufacturing process is highly fragmented, with a multitude of specialised companies producing different parts. ²³ A single smartphone can contain components from hundreds of different suppliers. ²³ These components range from the relatively simple, such as the casing and buttons, to the incredibly complex, like the display, camera modules, and, at the very heart of the device, the circuit board containing the processor and modem chipsets. ²³

###

The Role of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)

The companies that design, market, and sell the final branded smartphones, such as Apple and Samsung, are known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). ³⁰ While they are the public face of the product, they rely heavily on this extensive network of component suppliers. ³⁰ The management of this supply chain is a critical factor in the success of any smartphone company, determining the quality of the final product, the speed at which it can be brought to market, and its ultimate cost. ¹⁸

OEMs like Apple and Samsung have developed highly sophisticated supply chain management strategies to ensure a steady flow of high-quality components while keeping costs down. ³⁰ This often involves sourcing the same component from multiple suppliers to mitigate risks and encourage price competition. ³⁰

###

Qualcomm's Position in the Value Chain

Qualcomm occupies a unique and powerful position within this supply chain. It is not just a supplier of a physical component – the modem chipset – but also the licensor of the fundamental intellectual property that allows that component, and indeed the entire device, to function on a cellular network. ⁴² This dual role is at the core of the allegations against it.

The modem chipset, which Qualcomm designs and sells through its QCT (Qualcomm CDMA Technologies) division, is one of the most complex and critical components in a smartphone. ⁴² Its performance is a key determinant of a phone's connectivity speed and reliability. Qualcomm's Snapdragon series of processors, which often integrate the modem, are particularly dominant in the high-end Android market. ¹¹

Separately, Qualcomm's QTL (Qualcomm Technology Licensing) division manages its vast patent portfolio. ⁴² As previously discussed, this portfolio contains a large number of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies. ¹¹ This means that any company manufacturing a smartphone that complies with these standards, regardless of whose chipset it uses, must have a license to use Qualcomm's patented technology. ¹¹

The agreements between Qualcomm and OEMs like Apple and Samsung are therefore multifaceted. They involve not only the supply of physical chipsets but also complex and long-term patent licensing agreements. ^{3, 22} For example, in 2019, Apple and Qualcomm ended a protracted legal battle with a six-year global patent license agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. ⁴⁰ More recently, in early 2024, Apple exercised an option to extend this patent license agreement until March 2027. ³ Similarly, Qualcomm has a long-standing strategic partnership with Samsung, which was extended in 2022 to run until the end of 2030, covering technologies up to and including the forthcoming 6G standard. ²²

It is the terms of these licensing agreements, and the alleged leverage that Qualcomm uses to secure them, that are being challenged in the UK courts. The case will require a detailed examination of these commercial relationships and their impact on the broader competitive landscape of the smartphone industry.

##

The Economic Arguments and the Quest for Quantum

The *Which? v Qualcomm* case is not merely a matter of legal principle; it is also a complex economic dispute. At its heart is the question of whether consumers have been financially harmed and, if so, by how much. The process of quantifying this alleged harm, known as assessing the "quantum" of damages, will be a central and highly contested aspect of the trial.

###

The Theory of Overcharge

The fundamental economic argument being advanced by Which? is that Qualcomm's alleged anti-competitive practices have resulted in an "overcharge" on the cost of smartphones. ¹² This overcharge is the difference between the price that was actually paid by consumers and the "but-for" price – the price that would have prevailed in a competitive market, absent the alleged unlawful conduct. ²⁶

To establish this overcharge, Which?'s legal team and their economic experts will need to construct a convincing counterfactual scenario. This involves modelling what the market for patent licenses and chipsets would have looked like if Qualcomm had not engaged in the contested practices. This is an inherently complex task, as it requires making a series of assumptions about how market participants would have behaved in a different set of circumstances. ²⁶

###

Methodologies for Calculating Damages

There are several established economic methodologies for estimating overcharges in antitrust cases. ⁸ One common approach is the "before-and-after" method, where prices during the period of the alleged anti-competitive conduct are compared with prices before or after that period. ¹² Another is the "yardstick" or "comparator" method, which involves comparing the prices in the affected market with those in a similar market that was not subject to the anti-competitive behaviour. ²⁰

In the *Which? v Qualcomm* case, the expert for the claimants has proposed using a form of econometric analysis known as a hedonic regression model. ⁹ This statistical technique is used to estimate the value of the different characteristics that make up a product. By analysing a large dataset of smartphone prices and features over time, the model will attempt to isolate the impact of component costs on the final retail price. The goal is to demonstrate that the alleged "surcharge" from Qualcomm's licensing fees was passed on from the manufacturers to the consumers. ¹⁴

###

The Pass-On Defence and Expert Testimony

Qualcomm's legal and economic teams will undoubtedly challenge this methodology. A key line of defence in such cases is often to dispute the extent to which any overcharge at the manufacturing level was actually "passed on" to the end consumer. ¹² Defendants may argue that competitive pressures in the retail market forced manufacturers and retailers to absorb some or all of the increased costs, rather than passing them on in the form of higher prices.

The trial will feature a "battle of the experts," with economists from both sides presenting their analyses and critiquing the opposing view. ¹⁵ The Competition Appeal Tribunal will have to weigh the competing economic evidence to determine, first, whether an overcharge occurred and, second, how to quantify it. The CAT's judgment on the certification of the case indicated a willingness to allow such complex economic arguments to be fully explored at trial, in line with the precedent set by *Merricks v Mastercard*. ¹⁴

The potential damages in this case are substantial. The headline figure of £480 million is an aggregate estimate of the total loss suffered by the class of 29 million consumers. ³⁴ If the case is successful, the Tribunal will have to decide on the total amount of damages and approve a method for distributing these funds to the individual class members. This process itself can be complex, particularly in an opt-out action where not all class members may be easily identifiable.

##

Broader Implications and the Future of Tech Regulation

The outcome of the *Which? v Qualcomm* lawsuit will have significant repercussions that extend far beyond the immediate financial implications for the parties involved. The case is poised to set important precedents in several key areas, influencing the future of competition law, patent licensing, and consumer rights in the United Kingdom and potentially beyond.

###

A Test for the UK's Collective Action Regime

This case is a major test for the UK's opt-out collective action regime. ⁴ While the Supreme Court's decision in *Merricks v Mastercard* lowered the bar for certification, the *Qualcomm* case will be one of the first large-scale, standalone competition claims to be fully litigated under the new system. A victory for Which? would likely embolden other consumer groups and litigation funders to bring similar actions against large corporations, cementing the UK's position as an increasingly attractive jurisdiction for collective redress. ¹⁰ Conversely, a successful defence by Qualcomm could highlight the significant hurdles that still remain in proving complex economic harm on a collective basis.

###

The Future of FRAND Licensing and Standard Essential Patents

The lawsuit also has the potential to influence the ongoing global debate about the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on FRAND terms. A judgment against Qualcomm could be interpreted as a signal from a major legal jurisdiction that certain licensing practices, such as refusing to license to competitors and tying the sale of components to patent licenses, are incompatible with competition law. This could lead to pressure on SEP holders in the technology sector to adopt more transparent and flexible licensing models.

On the other hand, a ruling in favour of Qualcomm could be seen as an endorsement of its business model, which it argues is essential for funding the massive research and development investments required to drive innovation in mobile technology. The case will contribute to the body of international jurisprudence on the appropriate balance between rewarding innovation through robust patent protection and ensuring fair access to essential technologies to promote competition.

###

The Balance of Power Between Big Tech and Consumers

More broadly, the *Which? v Qualcomm* case is emblematic of a wider societal and regulatory trend towards holding large technology companies to greater account. In recent years, there has been growing concern about the market power wielded by a small number of dominant tech firms and the potential for this to harm consumers and stifle innovation. This has led to increased antitrust enforcement and new regulatory initiatives in many parts of the world.

A successful outcome for the claimants in this case would be a powerful demonstration of the ability of organised consumers, supported by a dedicated legal framework, to challenge the practices of even the most powerful global corporations. It would reinforce the principle that compliance with competition law is not optional and that companies that abuse a dominant market position can be held liable for the harm they cause to consumers.

Regardless of the final verdict, the detailed scrutiny of Qualcomm's business practices during the trial will contribute to a greater public and regulatory understanding of the complex and often opaque world of technology licensing. The evidence and arguments presented will be closely analysed by competition authorities, policymakers, and industry players around the world as they continue to grapple with the challenges of ensuring fair and competitive markets in the digital age.

##

Conclusion

The legal proceedings now underway at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London represent a critical juncture in the relationship between global technology giants, competition law, and the rights of consumers. The *Which? v Qualcomm* class action lawsuit is a multifaceted and complex case that will test the boundaries of the UK's collective redress mechanisms and contribute significantly to the international discourse on the regulation of Standard Essential Patents.

The claim, brought on behalf of millions of UK citizens, rests on the fundamental allegation that Qualcomm has leveraged its dominant position in the smartphone chipset and patent licensing markets to impose unfair costs on manufacturers, which have ultimately been borne by consumers. The case will involve a deep and technical examination of Qualcomm's business model, particularly its "no license, no chips" policy and its approach to FRAND licensing.

The outcome of this landmark trial is far from certain. Qualcomm has a track record of vigorously defending its business practices and has secured important legal victories in other jurisdictions. However, the evolving legal landscape in the UK, particularly following the *Merricks v Mastercard* judgment, has created a more favourable environment for large-scale consumer claims.

The implications of the Tribunal's decision will be profound. A ruling in favour of Which? could not only result in a substantial financial payout to UK consumers but also trigger a reassessment of patent licensing models across the technology industry. It would serve as a powerful affirmation of the UK's commitment to providing effective mechanisms for consumer redress and to holding dominant firms to account. Conversely, a victory for Qualcomm would underscore the high evidentiary burden required to prove anti-competitive harm in such complex markets and might temper the enthusiasm for future collective actions.

As the trial unfolds, it will be closely watched by legal experts, economists, technology industry insiders, and consumer advocates around the world. The £480 million question at the heart of this case is not just about financial compensation; it is about the fundamental principles of fair competition and access to justice in the digital economy.

##