It's not the clearest written complaint, but the actual lawsuit doesn't read to be frivolous. In essence (since no one is going to read the novel below), California has tough consumer protections and the allegations, if true, could be violation of California law.
In April of 2021, the underlying lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County (21-CV-380480) and the plaintiff's were seeking "damages, restitution, declaratory, and injunctive relief."
Count 1 being a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code secs. 17600 and 17200, as they related to a "continuous service offer" and "unfair competition."
- In essence it comes down to the allegation that the free trial doesn't include a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price and subscription upon conclusion of the trial.
- According to the statute, Apple was supposed to obtain an "acknowledgement" of "how to cancel, and allow the consumer to cancel" the "continuous service offer" before the end of the trial period.
- And as a result of not sending an acknowledgment to its customers: Apple failed to obtain the consent of consumers, which is a violation under California law.
- For that reason it is alleged to be "unfair competition."
- Additionally, because consumers are likely to exceed the 5GB (as pointed out by many people here that's a tiny amount of storage), and because consumers are already integrated with iCloud they "either hav[e] to pay an increasing amount of money for the next highest level or take[e] affirmative steps to cancel."
- The relief requested for Count 1 is declaratory relief (the judge says "this is wrong"), injunctive relief (the judge says "you can't do this anymore"), and restitution (the judge awards money for the "this is wrong" part).
Count 2 being the violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code secs. 17600 and 17200 ("automatic renewal offer" and "unfair competition")
- This is connected with the "automatic renewal" without the 17602(a)(1) "automatic renewal offer terms" that are "clear and conspicuous ... description of the cancellation policy that applies to the offer." i.e. it must be in larger font than the surrounding text, [or otherwise 'conspicuous'].
- The violations being that: (a) Apple's emails advising of the exceeded 5GB storage isn't "clear and conspicuous." And (b) There is no post-purchase "acknowledgment" including the "cancellation policy."
- Again, the relief requested for Count 2 is declaratory relief (the judge says "this is wrong"), injunctive relief (the judge says "you can't do this anymore"), and restitution (the judge awards money for the "this is wrong" part).
Count 3 being "automatic renewal offer" and "unfair competition" same codes as Count 1 and 2.
- Continues Count 2, the post-purchase "acknowledgment" doesn't provide "information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer." (i.e. simple for all people to remember).
- Again,the relief requested for Count 3 is declaratory relief (the judge says "this is wrong"), injunctive relief (the judge says "you can't do this anymore"), and restitution (the judge awards money for the "this is wrong" part).
Count 4 through 7 being "continuous service offer and automatic renewal offer" and "unfair competition" (same codes as Count 1, 2, and 3)
- Continuing the previous counts...
- C4 - Apple does not include an "easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation" described in the post-purchase "acknowledgment" (because there's not post-purchase acknowledgment according to code).
- C5 - lack of consent for the renewal offer in escalating price subscriptions
- C6 - breach of contract and code 17200 (unfair competition) - i.e. promises consumers they can manager their data, but fail to explain how data is managed upon downgrading or canceling iCloud (which data is deleted, which is kept)
- C7 - breach of contract and code 17200 (unfair competition) - i.e. data management again if you terminate the 5GB backing up and downloading iOS data is convoluted to another storage option (HD or third-party cloud), breach of 'good faith and fair dealing'.
- Again, the relief requested for these Counts (4-7) is still 'just' declaratory relief (the judge says "this is wrong"), injunctive relief (the judge says "you can't do this anymore"), and restitution (the judge awards money for the "this is wrong" part).
Count 8 being Cal Civ Code 1770 CLRA and 17200 (unfair competition again)
- Advertising doesn't match the true ability to identify or manage storage (on/off switches).
- Concerns about data loss if a consumer removes the iCloud plan.
- This count is seeking again, declaratory relief, injunction, restitution, but also nominal damages (at least $1).
Count 9 through 13, Code 17500 (FAL) and 17200 (again)
- C9 - Deleting and downgrading is not easy nor an accessible policy on the matter.
- C10 - unfair competition - difficulty in downgrading or removing keeps consumers stuck.
- C11 - unfair competition (again) - lured into paying for iCloud, and opaque terms, leads is statutorily "fraudulent ... business act or practice"
- C12 - Elder abuse - if C11 is true, then it is also specifically elder abuse which is also separately illegal.
- C13 - CLRA and unfair competition - There is no pro rata refund for terminating early.
