Alex Neill Class Representative Limited is suing three Sony entities in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of UK PlayStation users. It alleges Sony abused a dominant position by forcing digital purchases through the PlayStation Store and taking a 30% commission, inflating prices. The claim, now valued at about £1.97B, went to a ten-week trial that ended on May 8, 2026, and judgment is pending.
Latest development May 8, 2026
On May 8, 2026, the ten-week trial at the Competition Appeal Tribunal ended after four days of closing submissions. The Tribunal’s judgment on liability and quantum was still pending as of September 13, 2026.
Why it matters
The Tribunal will decide whether a console platform’s 30% commission on digital sales is an abuse of dominance under UK competition law. The ruling affects millions of UK PlayStation users and other console and app store operators facing similar commission-based claims.
Background
On August 22, 2022, Alex Neill Class Representative Limited applied to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to bring opt-out collective proceedings against Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited and two affiliates. Alex Neill, a UK consumer campaigner and co-founder of Consumer Voice, brought the claim under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. The claim alleges that Sony abused a dominant position in the console gaming market by tying digital PlayStation purchases to its own store and charging a 30% commission. The claimant says that cost was passed on to millions of UK consumers through inflated prices for digital games and add-ons. The claim was originally pleaded at up to roughly £5B.
Sony applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment. The Tribunal heard that application together with the application for a Collective Proceedings Order at a three-day hearing beginning June 7, 2023. In a judgment of November 21, 2023 ([2023] CAT 73), the Tribunal dismissed Sony’s application. It found the claims suitable for opt-out collective proceedings, subject to amendments to the pleaded case. On January 19, 2024, the Tribunal made the Collective Proceedings Order, certifying an opt-out class described at various points as roughly 9 to 12 million UK PlayStation users.
Woodsford funds the litigation, and Milberg London LLP advises the class representative. Case management, disclosure disputes and timetabling orders followed in 2024 and 2025, including an order of August 22, 2025, setting a revised timetable to trial. The Tribunal held a pre-trial review on February 12, 2026.
The trial ran for roughly ten weeks at the Tribunal in London, from March 10 to May 8, 2026, with closing submissions over the final four days. Robert Palmer, leading for the class representative, told the Tribunal in opening that Sony had pursued a strategy to exclude competition in digital distribution. By trial, the claim had been reduced to about £1.97B (roughly $2.7B). Sony argues that the PlayStation platform faces real competition from Nintendo and Microsoft and that its commission and margins are commercially reasonable. As of September 2026, the Tribunal’s judgment on liability and quantum remains pending.
Timeline 9 events
-
HearingParties deliver closing arguments as trial concludes
Closing submissions ran over the final four days of trial. A Tribunal ruling on liability and quantum was expected months later.
-
HearingTribunal opens ten-week merits trial in London
Claimant counsel Robert Palmer told the Tribunal that Sony had pursued a strategy to exclude competition in digital distribution.
UK trial opens against Sony over PlayStation video game pricesSony faces $2.7 billion class-action suit from U.K. PlayStation usersSony Fighting $2.7 Billion UK Lawsuit Over PlayStation Store Prices
-
HearingTribunal holds final pre-trial review before merits trial
-
OrderTribunal sets revised timetable to trial
The order followed case management conferences and disclosure directions in 2024 and early 2025.
-
OrderTribunal makes Collective Proceedings Order
The order certified the opt-out class action to proceed on behalf of UK PlayStation Store purchasers.
1527/7/7/22 Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited and OthersNotice of Collective Proceedings Order
-
JudgmentTribunal rejects Sony strike-out bid and approves collective proceedings
In [2023] CAT 73, the Tribunal dismissed Sony’s strike-out and summary judgment application. It found the claim suitable for opt-out collective proceedings, subject to amendments to the pleaded case.
Neutral citation [2023] CAT 73 Case No: 1527/7/7/22£5bn competition claim against Sony PlayStation proceeds to trialWoodsford funded £5bn class action against Sony PlayStation gets go ahead in UK Competition Appeal Tribunal
-
HearingTribunal hears strike-out and certification applications
Over three days, the Tribunal heard Sony’s strike-out and summary judgment application together with the application for a Collective Proceedings Order.
-
OrderTribunal holds first case management conference
The conference set the procedural path for the application for a Collective Proceedings Order.
-
FilingClass representative files claim at Competition Appeal Tribunal
Alex Neill Class Representative Limited applied to bring opt-out collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. It alleged abuse of dominance over the PlayStation Store.
1527/7/7/22 Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited and OthersSony's "game is up" as Competition Appeal Tribunal cements claimant-friendly status
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the Competition Appeal Tribunal find that Sony abused a dominant position through its PlayStation Store commission by June 30, 2027?
- Tribunal finds Sony abused dominance47%
- Tribunal dismisses Neill’s claim37%
- Still pending on June 30, 202712%
- Sony settles with the class4%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Tribunal is likely to rule by June 30, 2027, and a finding that Sony abused a dominant position is somewhat more likely than dismissal, at 47% against 37%. The Tribunal’s 2025 ruling in Kent v. Apple, which found a 30% app store commission abusive, is the closest analogy and favors the class.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Tribunal’s first merits judgment after the March to May 2026 trial, as published on the CAT website or reported in the legal press. “Tribunal finds Sony abused dominance” applies if the judgment finds an abuse under section 18 for any product, period, or part of the class, even if quantum is reduced or reserved for later determination. “Tribunal dismisses Neill’s claim” applies if the judgment finds no abuse, no dominance, or no recoverable loss. “Sony settles with the class” applies if a settlement is announced or submitted for Tribunal approval before any merits judgment. “Still pending on June 30, 2027” applies if none of these has occurred by that date.
Reasoning
Starting point. UK CAT opt-out collective proceedings decided after full merits trial, including platform commission and excessive pricing claims: Few CAT collective actions have reached trial judgment. Claimants won in Kent v. Apple and lost in Le Patourel v. BT and the boundary fares claim, roughly one in three. Judgments typically follow eight to ten months after trial.
CAT merits judgments in comparable collective actions have arrived about eight to ten months after trial, so a ruling before June 30, 2027, is likely, near 85%. Among trial judgments so far, claimants have won roughly one in three. That base rate is adjusted upward for this record. The claim survived strike-out and summary judgment in [2023] CAT 73. It also targets the same 30% commission model the Tribunal condemned in Kent v. Apple, which rested on similar aftermarket dominance reasoning. Sony’s strongest answer is that consoles compete with Nintendo and Microsoft, which may weaken the dominance case compared with Apple’s iOS ecosystem. Le Patourel v. BT also shows the Tribunal can find dominance but reject unfair pricing, which supports the dismissal outcome. The trial covered liability and quantum, so a liability win with a heavily reduced award remains within the claimant outcome. Settlement before judgment is unlikely once both sides have run a full trial and await a decision. Delay beyond June 2027 is the main alternative to a ruling, given the ten-week trial and complex economic evidence.
Kent v. Apple found a similar 30% commission abusive · Sony’s console competition argument against aftermarket dominance · Le Patourel shows dominance need not mean unfair pricing · Typical eight to ten month CAT judgment timeline · Claim survived strike-out and certification in 2023
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made