Is there a ‘competition law bar’? Edward Nyman considers user damages after the CAT’s Meta ruling
- In Gormsen v Meta Platforms Inc, the Competition Appeal Tribunal held that there is no clear principle precluding user damages for competition claims where conventional loss may be unavailable.
- The availability of user damages is fact‑sensitive and unsuitable for summary determination.
- User damages and conventional damages both rely on a notional bargain; calculations will not necessarily differ.
In the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT’s) ruling on Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s pleading amendments in her collective action against Meta (Gormsen v Meta Platforms Inc and others [2025] CAT 40), the CAT allowed for a ‘user damages’ head of loss to proceed to trial, rejecting Meta’s invitation for the CAT to ‘grasp the nettle’ and strike it out at the interlocutory stage. The CAT held that there is no clear principle that user damages are not recoverable for breaches of competition law, particularly where conventional damages may be unavailable, and that the question is a developing, fact-sensitive one. The CAT also
