Commercial Awareness Digest - 5th December 2025

The CAT’s Latest Competition Claims

By Zuha Malik

In a previous piece, I looked at how competition regulators are broadening their focus to include data and digital influence. But those debates don’t just play out in investigations. Increasingly, they end up in front of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), where companies and consumer groups are testing the limits of competition law through litigation. The CAT’s crowded run-up to Christmas highlights how quickly this side of the field is developing.

While regulators like the CMA examine mergers or conduct, the CAT deals with follow-on damages claims, abuse of dominance disputes and increasingly, opt-out collective actions (where one representative can bring a case on behalf of almost every UK consumer unless they actively opt out). In the CAT, the strength of a case depends not only on the legal theory but on whether the tribunal is satisfied the claim can realistically be run for a large class of consumers - practical assessment often proves just as important.

Take the newly certified claim brought by Justin Gutmann against Vodafone, O2, EE and Three over “loyalty penalties”. Gutmann has become a familiar figure in the CAT: he previously brought the Boundary Fares claim about train ticket pricing and the battery-throttling claim concerning Apple’s software updates. Those cases helped establish the standards the tribunal now applies when deciding whether a collective action can even get off the ground.

Certification in the loyalty-penalties case is significant. It means the CAT was satisfied that the claim is workable as a class action - in particular, that there is a credible economic model capable of estimating consumer harm across millions of customers. Since Boundary Fares, the tribunal has made clear that collective actions must show, from the outset, a clear and robust way of calculating loss. Gutmann’s latest claim meeting that bar is therefore notable.

Apple is also facing a proposed class action from Which?, represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher, over alleged self-preferencing of iCloud. Apple’s defence team at Covington & Burling challenged not just the merits but the financial viability of Litigation Capital Management (LCM), whose share price collapse raised questions about its ability to bankroll years-long litigation. Apple also argued Which? lacked the necessary independence as a class representative - an objection it previously used successfully when opposing Professor Christine Riefa in a related Apple/Amazon action.

Next in line is the Microsoft certification hearing, where Scott+Scott (a specialist claimant firm) act for Dr Maria Luisa Stasi, a digital competition expert. The CAT will have to decide whether her claim is suitably structured to proceed, and it will do so under the stricter approach set out in Dr Rachael Kent v Apple - a recent ruling where the tribunal emphasised that claimants must already show a workable way of proving that the alleged conduct caused consumer harm before a case can be certified.

For trainees, this area offers hands-on experience with everything from analysing economic reports to managing disclosure, preparing written arguments and working closely with experts and funders. It’s a practice where regulatory developments feed straight into live disputes, making it a genuinely varied and collaborative seat.

Competition in the AI Space: Anthropic's Proposed IPO

By Esme Glover

One of the largest initial public offerings (IPOs) has been proposed and is generating significant attention across both the artificial intelligence and legal sectors. Reports suggest that the AI start-up Anthropic could be valued at $350 billion if it proceeds with the IPO, positioning it as an important competitor to OpenAI, which currently dominates the generative AI market.

Anthropic, best known for its Claude chatbot which was launched in March 2023, is an AI start-up led by chief executive Dario Amodei. The company focuses on carefully assessing the risks and benefits of AI in order to become a ‘responsible AI’ company. Moreover, Anthropic places the long-term benefits that AI can produce for humanity at the heart of its operations, raising consumer confidence and expectations for the company.

From a legal perspective,IPOs represent a core area of work for commercial law firms, often requiring extensive regulatory, corporate and advisory expertise. An IPO occurs when a private company converts to a public company for the first time by issuing shares that can be purchased by public investors. Ultimately, this enables the company to list its stock to trade on a public exchange. This process involves a wide range of parties, including the issuing company, investment banks (acting as underwriters), securities regulators, auditors and legal advisors. Each plays a critical role in ensuring that the issuing company meets its disclosure obligations and complies with financial regulations.

Private companies seek to list on the public stock exchange several strategic reasons which strengthen their overall business outlook. The primary reason for an IPO is to raise capital. This is due to the public stock exchange reaching a wider pool of investors which will offer the company an opportunity to increase in value. Alongside this, a company’s reputation can be improved by an IPO as it raises the company’s media presence, particularly through commercial discourse, and provides more credibility to a company which attracts investors, clients and customers as a result.

Anthropic has reportedly instructed Wilson Sonsini, a US-based law firm with expertise in the technology and life science space, to advise on the potential IPO. Whilst there has been no official confirmation of the IPO as of yet, there have been suggestions that this could occur as early as 2026.

This proposal highlights the increasing competition within the AI sector as companies race to maintain their market dominance. Furthermore, it also reflects wider concerns around a potential “AI bubble” forming, where company valuations are driven more by future expectations than present profitability.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev