Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


Apple was not able to narrow the scope of a UK lawsuit accusing it of locking 40 million UK consumers into iCloud, to the detriment of third-party cloud storage providers. British consumer group Which? first filed the lawsuit in late 2024, and is asking for £3 billion for UK Apple customers.

iCloud-General-Feature.jpg

Apple wanted to exclude non-paying iCloud users from the lawsuit, but the tribunal denied Apple's request in a 2 to 1 majority. The lawsuit will go to trial, and will cover both paying and non-paying iCloud customers.

Apple users get 5GB of free storage for photos, messages, and other content on the iPhone, but are encouraged to subscribe to Apple's higher-tier iCloud storage options when the 5GB limit is exceeded. Which? claims that Apple favors its own cloud storage option, and makes it difficult for customers to use alternative cloud storage providers.

Which? sued Apple on behalf of all Apple iCloud users in the UK, regardless of whether they pay for an iCloud subscription plan. Normally, a customer that has not lost anything would not be eligible for a damages payment, but Which? has taken a unique approach.

The tribunal said the lawsuit raises a "novel" legal question, because it is not aware of another case where damages have been requested for "forgone consumer surplus." Forgone Consumer Surplus (FCS) is a legal theory that in this case argues people who were priced out of an iCloud subscription because of Apple's alleged market abuse have suffered a tangible loss because they did not have the opportunity to buy a service they wanted at a fair price in a competitive market.

The 200GB iCloud tier that costs £2.99 might have only cost £1.99 at a "fair" price, for example. Which? argues that a customer who would have theoretically paid £1.99 for the service but was not able to do so because the actual £2.99 price was unaffordable suffered a £1 loss, even though the customer paid nothing. Lawsuits for damages are usually more straightforward, covering paying customers who experienced clear harm from inflated pricing.

While two members of the tribunal sided with Which?, the other took Apple's side. The justice who argued against FCS warned that the case could lead to a flood of cases with secondary claims from non-purchasers based on hypothetical willingness-to-pay calculations.

Apple owes no damages at this point, and is now facing a trial to determine whether it abused its position and gave iCloud preferential treatment on iOS.

All UK consumers who are eligible are automatically included in the claim unless they opt out. Eligible consumers include those who obtained iCloud services from November 8, 2018, to the present. Which? estimates that Apple could owe UK customers an average payout of £70.

Which? wants Apple to settle the claim without litigation by offering consumers their money back and opening up iOS to let users choose a cloud provider.

Article Link: Apple Faces £3 Billion UK Trial Over iCloud Lock-In Claims
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak and Z-4195
As a Brit, I couldn't care less. All cloud storage costs about the same, whether it's Google, Microsoft or Apple, a few quid a month isn't a big deal. Not sure how an encrypted backup is supposed to work with a third party service either. I wouldn't want my backups anywhere else but iCloud. Not to be an apple defender, but of all the possible lawsuits, I don't get this one.
 
"Apple [CUSTOMERS] Faces £3 Billion UK Trial"

Fixed that for you. We all know Apple will just pass the costs onto the consumer.

"Over iCloud Lock-In Claims"

Yep just like how some people claim the Earth is flat, doesn't mean it's true.
 
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.
Me too!!

I'd even buy a NAS from Apple to make it work...

But I don't want the Monthly fee.... and they could make it work with out a static IP where it goes by the Apple ID to find the Apple Nas
 
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.
Options like that would be great. I think a lot of the lawsuits brought against Apple are frivolous, but I do think it would be good if they'd open up cloud backup options to competitors. I'd probably stick with iCloud anyway, but it'd be nice if competition drove prices down a little.
 
I’m really surprised it has taken so long for someone to sue over this really obvious lock in by Apple, they should have offered better plans years ago and the option to let people use other storage
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.
This is the one thing you will never get, tho it's blindingly obvious that running your shared folder locally would be infinitely better there's no money in it for the shareholders, I mean you do want Apple to have another fabulous financial quarter.......... don't you ?
 
I would like Windows but without all the Microsoft bloat and Microsoft upselling.
I would like to own a Playstation that can also be allowed to install Steam and play Xbox games.
I would like to buy an app or game for one platform and have that same app/game available to all platforms so I can switch platforms easily.
I would like a YouTube TV service where I only pay for certain channels so my bill won't be that high.
I would like to use Whoop wristband, but without paying a monthly fee.
I would like DMs/video chats/file sharing from all social media and messaging platforms to adopt a universal standard so I can talk with others that aren't using my social network provider/messaging platform.

and so on.

But I would never ask to make it a law because that would be ****ing stupid. Instead, I vote with my wallet because I have common sense.
 
Also Brit here, I dont get this at all. I'm under no obligation to be on iCloud, I can just sync with my laptop if I want, I can download all my images if I want. Sure I've been paying 99p a month because it happens to be cheap and convenient purely for my apple stuff but even then I know how to cancel it and pull my data, and I remove my photos when it gets full. I have other cloud providers for my other stuff.

I don't see how I'm apparently 'locked in'? I'm not sure I see them winning this.
 
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.

My android devices have it and I love it. You can even plug in a thumb drive to make another manual backup
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Not sure how this isn't political but not-that-great-today britain seems batnoob crazy.

You can't have Forgone Surplus if you aren't making any surplus in the first place.

commies are rampant
 
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.
I use Immich... but it doesn't integrate with Photos... but I can use my Mac (browser) and iOS device and then I use a third party to do what I need to do to the photos...
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuropsychguy
Honestly, who cares. It's Apple's product. They built it, they took the risk, they own the thing top to bottom. If they want iCloud to be the default and only cloud backup option on iOS, that's their call to make.

The consumer has a choice. It's called not buying an iPhone.

Nobody's forced into the ecosystem. You walk into the shop knowing exactly what Apple is. The walled garden isn't hidden, it's half the reason people buy in. And £2.99 for 200GB isn't extortion, it's roughly what Google and Microsoft charge for the same thing.

Where do we stop with this logic anyway? HP locks you into their ink cartridges and actively bricks third-party ones with firmware updates. Nespresso wants you buying their pods. Games consoles take a cut on every game sold. Every John Deere tractor is a fight to repair with non-official parts. The whole consumer electronics industry runs on aftermarket lock-in. Picking on Apple for iCloud while ignoring all of that feels less like principled competition law and more like going after the biggest name in the room.

The idea that a court should now decide what the "fair" price of iCloud should have been, and hand out damages to people who never even paid for it because they hypothetically might have if it were cheaper, is a bit mad when you say it out loud.

Don't like how Apple does things? Buy a Pixel. That's how markets are supposed to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kr0019
I'm sure Apple makes more profit with iCloud, but I wish they offered a NAS for home users, something like their old Airport setup. As for this lawsuit, I don't see how any user is "locked in" to Apple's iCloud. There are dozens of other cloud storage services at varying prices. Apple doesn't really force you into using theirs (though of course it's more convenient).
 
As a member of the Consumer Association (aka Which?) in the UK I am really peed off with this action and have written to the organisation suggesting it's an ambulance chaser.
 
I just wish I could use my own NAS instead of iCloud to store my photos library and have it be integrated with Photos on Mac and iPhone, so that photos get uploaded automatically and appear on all devices.
Why can’t you
Honestly, who cares. It's Apple's product. They built it, they took the risk, they own the thing top to bottom. If they want iCloud to be the default and only cloud backup option on iOS, that's their call to make.

The consumer has a choice. It's called not buying an iPhone.

Nobody's forced into the ecosystem. You walk into the shop knowing exactly what Apple is. The walled garden isn't hidden, it's half the reason people buy in. And £2.99 for 200GB isn't extortion, it's roughly what Google and Microsoft charge for the same thing.

Where do we stop with this logic anyway? HP locks you into their ink cartridges and actively bricks third-party ones with firmware updates. Nespresso wants you buying their pods. Games consoles take a cut on every game sold. Every John Deere tractor is a fight to repair with non-official parts. The whole consumer electronics industry runs on aftermarket lock-in. Picking on Apple for iCloud while ignoring all of that feels less like principled competition law and more like going after the biggest name in the room.

The idea that a court should now decide what the "fair" price of iCloud should have been, and hand out damages to people who never even paid for it because they hypothetically might have if it were cheaper, is a bit mad when you say it out loud.

Don't like how Apple does things? Buy a Pixel. That's how markets are supposed to work.
It’s what is known as Apple can do no right
 
Just like I can backup my Mac to the cloud provider of my choice, I should have this option for my ios devices.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.