Daniel Carall-Green, instructed by Geradin Partners, and led by Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, acted for Prof Barry Rodger in successfully resisting Google’s application to vary the opt-out collective proceedings order in Prof Rodger’s case.

The background to Prof Rodger’s case is explained here. Prof Rodger alleges that Google has excluded competition in the market for app distribution, allowing Google to impose prices on app developers (in the form of commission on sales made via the Play Store) that are uncompetitive, excessive, and unfair. He is claiming for losses suffered by UK app developers as a result.

Google originally chose not to oppose Prof Rodger’s application for opt-out certification, but raised a number of points in correspondence about Prof Rodger’s funding arrangements. The Tribunal granted opt-out certification, and listed Prof Rodger’s case for trial in September 2026, alongside the case brought by Ms Coll on behalf of UK consumers in respect of the same allegedly unlawful conduct.

Then, in February 2026, Google applied for a variation of the certification order so as to require the 25 largest UK app developers (measured by claim size) to opt in (i.e., not to allow them to continue to be a part of the proceedings on an opt-out basis).

The application was argued at a hearing on 4 June. The Competition Appeal Tribunal refused Google’s application. Among the Tribunal’s reasons were the following:

  • The claims had not weakened since certification.
  • The arguments that Google was now making about claim size were based on Google’s own transaction data, and so could have been raised earlier.
  • The Tribunal was required to make an “overall assessment of the balance of justice” when deciding the question of opt-in versus opt-out. Here, the class was numerous and, looking at the case overall, the balance of justice favoured opt-out certification.
  • The differences between larger and smaller class members were differences of degree not of type: “the difference in the claims of the class members are on a sliding scale rather than representing a qualitative difference that would, on the evidence currently before us, enable a principled split of the class”. It was also difficult to decide which class members were larger or smaller because the identities of the top 25 class members varied depending on when the claim size was assessed.
  • The “vast majority” of class members had small claims “worth no more than a few hundred pounds”.
  • Granting the application at such a late stage would risk “completely derailing the trial”.
  • The evidence was that “excising the largest claimants from the class would fundamentally alter the viability of funding, leading to a real risk of the collapse of the Rodger Proceedings”.

The judgment can be found here.

The trial remains listed to begin, on an opt-out basis, on 28 September 2026.