In this case the claim rests on section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 [1] and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2], which sti

In this case the claim rests on section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 [1] and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2], which still applies post-brexit. Both relate to abuse of a dominant market position to charge “unfair” prices. The judgement granting a Collective Proceedings Order is at [3]. It’s worth noting that this CPO (class action equivalent) regime in the UK is still developing its case law, having been dramatically expanded in a landmark 2020 case [4]. That case and the judgement implies that the merits of this case are largely untested by the court, so the fact that a CPO was granted doesn’t say all that much about whether Sony will lose. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/41/section/18 [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/teec/article/102 [3] https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/15277722%20Alex%20Neill%20Class%20Representative%20Limited%20v%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20Network%20Europe%20Limited%3B%20and%20Sony%20Interactive%20Entertainment%20UK%20Limited%20-%20Jud_0.pdf https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-11/152777... [4] https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collective-actions-regime-where-are-we-now https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-collect...