UK iCloud Users Could Claim £77 Each as Apple Case Heads to Trial

[MacRumors]

A class action lawsuit accusing Apple of overcharging U.K. iCloud users has been certified to go ahead, putting the £3 billion ($3.9 billion) claim on track for a trial in October 2028.

According to BBC News, the Competition Appeal Tribunal cleared consumer group Which? to bring the case on behalf of an estimated 40 million U.K. iPhone and iPad owners, each of whom could receive up to £77 if the claim succeeds.

Which? alleges that Apple has locked customers into iCloud since 2015 by limiting how rival cloud services work on its devices, and then charged inflated subscription prices as a result. Apple gives users 5GB of free storage and pushes them toward paid tiers once that fills up, with U.K. pricing running from 99p a month for 50GB to £54.99 a month for 12TB.

The consumer group filed its claim against Apple at the tribunal on behalf of affected consumers in November 2024.

Anabel Hoult, Which?'s chief executive, said the group wanted to make clear that no company "no matter how powerful, can get away with abusing its position." She said the green light from the tribunal meant Which? was "one step closer to getting consumers the redress we believe they are owed from Apple."

"This should send a strong message to any other companies using anti-competitive tactics," she added.

Apple has called the claims unfounded, and argues that no customer is required to use iCloud and that alternatives exist. The company said it strongly disagrees with the tribunal's decision and plans to appeal.

Eligibility covers anyone who used iCloud on a U.K. device between November 8, 2018 and June 8, 2026. Those living in the U.K. on June 8 are included automatically unless they opt out by October 8, while non-U.K. residents from that date must opt in by the same deadline. Customers who first used iCloud after June 8, 2026 are excluded.

(Thanks, Alan!)

Article Link: UK iCloud Users Could Claim £77 Each as Apple Case Heads to Trial

 

[cjsuk]

You are required to use iCloud. You can’t install apps without an iCloud linked account.

 

[snn5]

The legally interesting point here is that this is not really about whether iCloud is “optional” in the abstract. Apple is obviously right that nobody is literally forced to subscribe to iCloud. But competition law usually looks beyond formal choice and asks whether a dominant platform has designed the environment in a way that makes rival services less effective, less convenient, or commercially disadvantaged.

That is where this case could become significant. If Which? can show that Apple used control over iOS/iPadOS to make iCloud uniquely seamless while limiting what competing cloud services could realistically do — especially for backups, app data, photos, and system-level integration — then “you could have used Dropbox/Google Drive/OneDrive” may not be a complete answer. The legal question is whether those alternatives were genuinely substitutable, not merely available.

That said, certification is not a finding of wrongdoing. Which? still has to prove market definition, dominance, abuse, causation, and inflated pricing. Apple will also likely argue that integration, privacy, security, and user experience justify the way iCloud works. Those are not trivial arguments.

So I don’t read this as “Apple loses.” I read it as: the tribunal thinks the competition-law theory is serious enough to be tested properly. And that is probably healthy. In digital ecosystems, the line between good product integration and unlawful self-preferencing is exactly the kind of issue courts need to examine carefully.

 

[iZac]

I look forward to the negotiated-down £5 payout in 2036

 

[Happy_John]

The legally interesting point here is that this is not really about whether iCloud is “optional” in the abstract. Apple is obviously right that nobody is literally forced to subscribe to iCloud. But competition law usually looks beyond formal choice and asks whether a dominant platform has designed the environment in a way that makes rival services less effective, less convenient, or commercially disadvantaged.

That is where this case could become significant. If Which? can show that Apple used control over iOS/iPadOS to make iCloud uniquely seamless while limiting what competing cloud services could realistically do — especially for backups, app data, photos, and system-level integration — then “you could have used Dropbox/Google Drive/OneDrive” may not be a complete answer. The legal question is whether those alternatives were genuinely substitutable, not merely available.

That said, certification is not a finding of wrongdoing. Which? still has to prove market definition, dominance, abuse, causation, and inflated pricing. Apple will also likely argue that integration, privacy, security, and user experience justify the way iCloud works. Those are not trivial arguments.

So I don’t read this as “Apple loses.” I read it as: the tribunal thinks the competition-law theory is serious enough to be tested properly. And that is probably healthy. In digital ecosystems, the line between good product integration and unlawful self-preferencing is exactly the kind of issue courts need to examine carefully.

A very good summary of the situation. The line between "good product integration and unlawful self-preferencing" is very blurry at best and examining and defining this line is a lot more interesting that any "Four legs good, two legs bad" shouting from "football team supporters" on either side of the case.

 

[Onelifenofear]

You are required to use iCloud. You can’t install apps without an iCloud linked account.

So a service exists that didn't before.
You get given a free level of said service.
You CAN pay for MORE service if you want.
At the time Apple hadn't coded to allow other Storage services access... they have now in the file app and system level hooks in MacOS.

You are required to use iCloud. You can’t install apps without an iCloud linked account.

So? It's still free.

 

[cjsuk]

So a service exists that didn't before.
You get given a free level of said service.
You CAN pay for MORE service if you want.
At the time Apple hadn't coded to allow other Storage services access... they have now in the file app and system level hooks in MacOS.



So? It's still free.

There's no such thing as free. The phone should work entirely and be usable without an account.

 

[JulianL]

Damn. When I read the headline about a UK iCloud case I thought it might be Apple prosecuting its case against the UK government's effective banning of iCloud Advanced Data Protection in the UK (as in forcing Apple to withdraw that feature for UK users). That whole affair has been shrouded in secrecy, I think the fact that Apple initially challenged the UK Government about it in court was only made public via a leak originating in the USA, so I don't know the current status of any Apple fightback but as far as I'm concerned all power to Apple if legal challenges are still going on behind the scenes.

As a UK citizen I am absolutely furious at my government about the ADP situation in the UK. it's sort of the cyber equivalent of the UK government banning all Covid-19 vaccines in the UK during the pandemic. My own government is making me as a UK resident more vulnerable to a data hack than pretty much any other person on the planet who, while they might not exercise their rights, can if they wish enable ADP in their iCloud account to make it impossible for a intrusion/hack into Apple servers compromise their data whereas I can't.

I suppose I should write to my MP to see if she will raise the matter in Parliament but the thought of trying to explain the concepts of zero-knowledge encryption to someone with absolutely no technical background doesn't make me optimistic that it would be an effective intervention even if she agreed to take up the cause. There are a few MPs in the UK Parliament who are computer scientists but sadly my local MP is not one of them.

 

[minimo3]

Is which? also going to file a lawsuit against the BBC for forcing everyone to pay a tv license?

 

[t122648]

The number of Apple-can-do-no-wrong Macrumors posting is mind boggling...

 

[MagicBoy]

Worth noting the free tier started at 5GB in 2011 when iCloud was introduced, back when iPhones were shipping with 8GB storage.

Minimum storage tier in 2026 for a new iPhone is 256GB - 32 times larger than 2011. Camera has gone from 8MP to 48MP. iCloud free tier is still 5GB in 2026.

Should it be 32x larger? Probably not. 20GB would be a sensible free minimum.

 

[Happy_John]

Is which? also going to file a lawsuit against the BBC for forcing everyone to pay a tv license?

Um, the BBC doesn't force everyone to pay for a TV licence. The British government sets the licensing fee. A nominal division of the BBC collects the money. The licensing fee does not exclusively go to The BBC, the Finance and Business division of The BBC is obliged to divvy it out to other broadcasters as well as The BBC.

The license covers costs of maintaining broadcasting infrastructure, which is used by many broadcasters, not just BBC programming.

Lastly, while The BBC is a "statuary corporation", that is not the same as a corporation such as Apple, as The BBC is wholely owned by the British public themselves.

The debate on whether people should be obliged to pay a Licence Fee when they are not using that broadcasting infrastructure to receive content is a valid one, as is how the Licence Fee is divvied up and allocated, but it's not as simple as saying "The Evil BBC are shaking us down".

 

[John Connor]

A measly 5GB in 2026 is insulting.

 

[podycust]

Wouldnt hold your breath you’ll see any money as did which? Take a case against Qualcomm and then quietly settle out of court so us consumers got nothing?

 

[Happy_John]

Worth noting the free tier started at 5GB in 2011 when iCloud was introduced, back when iPhones were shipping with 8GB storage.

Minimum storage tier in 2026 for a new iPhone is 256GB - 32 times larger than 2011. Camera has gone from 8MP to 48MP. iCloud free tier is still 5GB in 2026.

Should it be 32x larger? Probably not. 20GB would be a sensible free minimum.

I generally agree, but 50 GB makes more sense to me as a minimum, given the base iPad starts with 64GB storage and most core Apple devices start at 128 GB or 256 GB these days.

Move the first paid tier to 200GB, and charge upwards from there.

 

[SBlue1]

Google Drive is 15GB for free. Apple is just forcing us to pay a monthly fee for using our devices knowing that people won't switch because of paying a few Euros a month.

 

[BlairMALL]

The number of Apple-can-do-no-wrong Macrumors posting is mind boggling...

I know, and the Apple-can-do-right comments are also staggering…

 

[spazzcat]

There's no such thing as free. The phone should work entirely and be usable without an account.

The account is still free

 

[Happy_John]

A measly 5GB in 2026 is insulting.

It's not insulting, because it's free.

But it isn't adequate as a base level for storage with current devices, as base on-device storage has increased dramatically.

It's not about feeling insulted or not, it's about being viable.

 

[spazzcat]

Google Drive is 15GB for free. Apple is just forcing us to pay a monthly fee for using our devices knowing that people won't switch because of paying a few Euros a month.

You are the product when using googles free space.

 

[mnewby]

I think one issue is that people on this forum know what iCloud is and the majority of users do not. So when they get told it's almost full (because it defaults backup to it) they think they havent got room for photos and often pay.

 

[Happy_John]

The account is still free

It is, but the setup does quite aggressively nag for a payment method details, and, while, you can create an account with adding any payment methods details, it is not as easy as it could be to choose that option.

 

[boswald]

Apple could take charge and avoid some of this if they'd increase their base cloud storage. Well, maybe not avoid litigious lawyers but they would be helping their customers at the very least. These days more people are experimenting with RAW formats, collecting a lot of videos of their kids or concerts (among others), and etc. It all adds up. I think 5GB/mo is just not feasible anymore. And no, we shouldn't have to pay ridiculously high SSD upgrade fees to compensate for the lack of cloud storage.

 

[reden]

A class action lawsuit accusing Apple of overcharging U.K. iCloud users has been certified to go ahead, putting the £3 billion ($3.9 billion) claim on track for a trial in October 2028.

According to BBC News, the Competition Appeal Tribunal cleared consumer group Which? to bring the case on behalf of an estimated 40 million U.K. iPhone and iPad owners, each of whom could receive up to £77 if the claim succeeds.

Which? alleges that Apple has locked customers into iCloud since 2015 by limiting how rival cloud services work on its devices, and then charged inflated subscription prices as a result. Apple gives users 5GB of free storage and pushes them toward paid tiers once that fills up, with U.K. pricing running from 99p a month for 50GB to £54.99 a month for 12TB.

The consumer group filed its claim against Apple at the tribunal on behalf of affected consumers in November 2024.

Anabel Hoult, Which?'s chief executive, said the group wanted to make clear that no company "no matter how powerful, can get away with abusing its position." She said the green light from the tribunal meant Which? was "one step closer to getting consumers the redress we believe they are owed from Apple."

"This should send a strong message to any other companies using anti-competitive tactics," she added.

Apple has called the claims unfounded, and argues that no customer is required to use iCloud and that alternatives exist. The company said it strongly disagrees with the tribunal's decision and plans to appeal.

Eligibility covers anyone who used iCloud on a U.K. device between November 8, 2018 and June 8, 2026. Those living in the U.K. on June 8 are included automatically unless they opt out by October 8, while non-U.K. residents from that date must opt in by the same deadline. Customers who first used iCloud after June 8, 2026 are excluded.

(Thanks, Alan!)

Article Link: Apple's £3 Billion UK iCloud Case Cleared for Trial

I’m fully in favor of this case, and I hope Apple loses.

While Apple has created an incredibly seamless and user-friendly ecosystem, it still restricts users from replicating the same experience with competing services. For example, I own a Synology NAS and would prefer to have all of my photos automatically sync to my Synology cloud rather than iCloud. The problem is that the iPhone’s Camera app saves directly to Apple Photos, and Apple does not provide the same level of system integration for third-party photo services.

This isn’t accidental. Apple knows that photos and videos are among the largest consumers of storage on a device. By tightly integrating the Camera app with Photos and iCloud, Apple effectively closes the loop, making it difficult for users to choose alternative storage providers without sacrificing convenience.

As a result, many users feel compelled to pay for additional iCloud storage simply to maintain the seamless experience they’re accustomed to. The alternative, manually offloading and managing photos is inconvenient and unrealistic for the average user. In practice, that leaves many people feeling like paying for more iCloud storage isn’t really a choice, but a necessity.

 

[Happy_John]

I’m fully in favor of this case, and I hope Apple loses.

While Apple has created an incredibly seamless and user-friendly ecosystem, it still restricts users from replicating the same experience with competing services. For example, I own a Synology NAS and would prefer to have all of my photos automatically sync to my Synology cloud rather than iCloud. The problem is that the iPhone’s Camera app saves directly to Apple Photos, and Apple does not provide the same level of system integration for third-party photo services.

This isn’t accidental. Apple knows that photos and videos are among the largest consumers of storage on a device. By tightly integrating the Camera app with Photos and iCloud, Apple effectively closes the loop, making it difficult for users to choose alternative storage providers without sacrificing convenience.

As a result, many users feel compelled to pay for additional iCloud storage simply to maintain the seamless experience they’re accustomed to. The alternative, manually offloading and managing photos is inconvenient and unrealistic for the average user. In practice, that leaves many people feeling like paying for more iCloud storage isn’t really a choice, but a necessity.

The gripe I'd add to this is why there has never been a proper, automated equivalent to TM on iOS, to allow automated incremental wireless backups to a NAS. it's been a standard in macOS for a very long time now, so why not across IOS and IPadOS?