Latest news with #CompetitionAppealTribunal
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Amazon faces lawsuit over alleged price-parity policy violations
Online e-commerce giant Amazon is facing a collective lawsuit from the Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) over alleged price-parity policy violations affecting 45 million consumers in the UK. The claim was filed with the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal on 14 August 2025. ACSO, a UK body dedicated to consumer rights, alleges that from August 2019 to August 2025, customers who bought items from third-party sellers on Amazon's platform were overcharged due to the company's price-parity policies. The group contends that Amazon's price parity policies restrict third-party sellers from setting lower prices for their products on alternative online platforms. According to ACSO, this practice shields Amazon from competitive pricing with other e-commerce entities, resulting in increased costs for UK consumers. ACSO asserts these consumers may be entitled to reimbursement for the excess amounts paid. ACSO founder and executive director Matthew Maxwell-Scott stated: 'Millions of people in the UK make purchases on Amazon every day. Despite the company's assurances that it is above all else 'customer-obsessed', we consider there are strong grounds to argue that UK consumers have paid higher prices because of Amazon's pricing policies. 'ACSO is therefore bringing collective proceedings against Amazon to ensure that consumers can obtain redress for the considerable losses they have suffered. Collective actions such as these are an excellent way for consumers to exercise their rights and for anti-competitive corporate behaviour to be challenged.' Amazon's pricing strategies have previously been scrutinised by competition authorities worldwide. The international law firm Stephenson Harwood, led by partner Genevieve Quierin, is representing ACSO. The legal team includes Tim Knight, Alex Athanasopoulos, Katelyn Iacono, Mikaela Hristova and Jay Kim. Genevieve Quierin stated: 'Amazon appears to have circumvented previous regulatory interventions targeting its pricing policies and is now implementing policies which we contend are anti-competitive, to the detriment of UK consumers. We are grateful that ACSO has instructed Stephenson Harwood, and we look forward to securing compensation for the millions of consumers who have been affected by Amazon's alleged anti-competitive conduct.' Ben Lask KC, Luke Kelly and Jenn Lawrence of Monckton Chambers, along with The Brattle Group, have also been instructed by ACSO to support the collective proceedings. "Amazon faces lawsuit over alleged price-parity policy violations" was originally created and published by Retail Insight Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
BBC News
09-07-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Bristol Airport legal challenge to £200m Cardiff Airport subsidy
Bristol Airport has launched a legal challenge to plans by the Welsh government to subsidise its want to spend £206m over ten years to boost passenger numbers and improve facilities at the government-owned Cardiff has complained that the subsidy is "unprecedented" and would exceed Cardiff Airport's current annual Secretary Rebecca Evans said in her government would "defend this legal challenge". Cardiff Airport has had millions in loans and grants since being bought by the Welsh government in 2013 - with spending having totalled £179.6m by hope the new money will help the airport attract two million passengers a year and develop its maintenance, cargo and aviation of the subsidy has already been received by the airport - £20m for the current financial year. In a written on Wednesday, Evans confirmed Bristol was challenging the decision in the Competition Appeal an open letter in April, Bristol Airport said the proposed subsidy "would exceed Cardiff Airport's current annual turnover, in each year of the planned 10-year duration"."No other airport in the UK has ever received anything close to this level of public subsidy, and as such it is unprecedented, and comes on top of the nearly £200m of taxpayers' money already provided to Cardiff Airport."Bristol Airport welcomes competition, but this must be on a level playing field to avoid market distortions. "This subsidy could move activity between locations at huge cost to the taxpayer but without any net economic benefit."Conservative Senedd member Sam Rowlands said the subsidy was a "really significant amount of money, particularly given passenger numbers still remain below those pre-pandemic levels".He pressed the government to "admit that the current approach is not working" and to sell the airport. 'Thousands of jobs' Bristol claimed the total state funding awarded to Cardiff since it was nationalised amounted to £286 for every household in disputed the figure, telling the Senedd the support was worth "just £13 per year for each household, or less than £6 for each citizen in Wales" over 22 said she could not comment much further "other than to say that we absolutely recognise the importance of Cardiff Airport to the economy of the south Wales region, with thousands of jobs stemming from the airport and the economic ecosystem that is supported by it. "We believe very strongly that with the right investment, the airport has the potential to make an even greater contribution to the economy". Last year the Welsh government referred the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority, which then set out some issues including asking ministers to "more systematically set out and evidence" potential impacts on its said the government had made some "unevidenced assumptions" in how officials have analysed the impact on Bristol Airport has been asked to comment.
North Wales Chronicle
18-06-2025
- Business
- North Wales Chronicle
Compensation delayed for millions of Brits in Mastercard
This follows the Competition Appeal Tribunal's approval on how the settlement should be distributed last month, following the class action against Mastercard, which dates back to 2016. Walter Merricks, the former financial ombudsman, launched his claim after the European Commission ruled in 2007 that Mastercard's 'multilateral interchange fees' charged to businesses had since 1992 infringed competition law. He alleged that 46 million shoppers in Britain were ripped off after fees were wrongly levied on transactions made over a 15-year period between 1992 and 2008. The fees were paid by retailers accepting Mastercard payments, rather than by consumers themselves. But Mr Merricks claimed shoppers had lost out as retailers passed on these fees in the form of higher prices. It followed the arrival of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which allowed for US-style class actions in UK competition claims. A statement from Mr Merricks said millions of UK consumers who are part of the class action could now come forward and claim their share of the £200 million, with individuals potentially getting between £45 and £70 each. Recommended reading Mr Merricks said UK consumers would shortly be able to register to receive a payment by completing a simple online form, regardless of whether they ever held a Mastercard card - bit that now seems to be delayed. Commenting on the outcome, Mr Merricks said: 'I started this case because I believed that Mastercard's fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long periods by paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs. 'As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that.'
South Wales Guardian
18-06-2025
- Business
- South Wales Guardian
Compensation delayed for millions of Brits in Mastercard
This follows the Competition Appeal Tribunal's approval on how the settlement should be distributed last month, following the class action against Mastercard, which dates back to 2016. Walter Merricks, the former financial ombudsman, launched his claim after the European Commission ruled in 2007 that Mastercard's 'multilateral interchange fees' charged to businesses had since 1992 infringed competition law. He alleged that 46 million shoppers in Britain were ripped off after fees were wrongly levied on transactions made over a 15-year period between 1992 and 2008. The fees were paid by retailers accepting Mastercard payments, rather than by consumers themselves. But Mr Merricks claimed shoppers had lost out as retailers passed on these fees in the form of higher prices. It followed the arrival of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which allowed for US-style class actions in UK competition claims. A statement from Mr Merricks said millions of UK consumers who are part of the class action could now come forward and claim their share of the £200 million, with individuals potentially getting between £45 and £70 each. Recommended reading Mr Merricks said UK consumers would shortly be able to register to receive a payment by completing a simple online form, regardless of whether they ever held a Mastercard card - bit that now seems to be delayed. Commenting on the outcome, Mr Merricks said: 'I started this case because I believed that Mastercard's fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long periods by paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs. 'As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that.'
Daily Mirror
18-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mirror
Mastercard compensation payments delayed as new legal challenge launched
The payment card provider has agreed to pay £200million to settle a case against it - with millions of people due up to £70 each Millions of Brits could be forced to wait months for compensation from Mastercard due to a new legal challenge. The payment card provider has agreed to pay £200million to settle a case against it - with millions of people due up to £70 each. Walter Merricks, the former financial ombudsman, argued that 46 million shoppers were ripped off after fees were wrongly levied on transactions between 1992 and 2008. The fees were paid by retailers accepting Mastercard payments, rather than by customers themselves - meaning you don't necessarily need to have owned a Mastercard to be eligible for compensation. The Competition Appeal Tribunal gave its final approval last month - but now, it has been revealed that the online claims portal is being delayed following a legal challenge from a company called Innsworth. Innsworth helped fund the case but is now trying to challenge how these funds will be split. reports that this could see payments delayed by months. You may be eligible for payments if you lived in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for at least three months between June 1997 and June 2008, and you bought goods or services from UK businesses that accepted Mastercard credit cards. If you live in Scotland, the starting point is May 1992. The judgment has ringfences £100million for consumers, and if the expected 5% of claimants – 2.5 million people – come forward, then they will receive £45 each. If fewer claimants come forward, then payments will be capped at £70 per claimant. Once the legal challenge is resolved, an online claims portal will be launched at Commenting on the original outcome of the case, Mr Merricks said: 'I started this case because I believed that Mastercard's fees paid by retailers for processing card transactions had been unlawfully high and virtually all UK consumers had lost out for long periods by paying higher prices than they should have done as retailers passed on those costs. 'As the evidence came to be known through the litigation process, this was the position only in a relatively small proportion of transactions and the settlement reflects that. 'The settlement that has today been finally approved represents a fair and just outcome for UK consumers. On any view, recovering £200 million by way of a settlement for UK consumers is a huge sum, and that will translate into a meaningful impact in the pockets of UK consumers.'
