Apple has failed to narrow the scope of a UK lawsuit accusing it of locking 40 million British consumers into iCloud , at the expense of third-party cloud storage providers. British consumer group Which? first filed the lawsuit in late 2024 and is seeking £3 billion for Apple customers in the UK.
Apple tried to exclude users who did not pay for an iCloud subscription from the lawsuit, but the court rejected the request by a majority of 2 to 1. The lawsuit will proceed to trial and will cover all iCloud users, both those who paid for a subscription and those who used it for free.
Why was a lawsuit filed against Apple and iCloud?
Apple users get 5GB of free storage for photos, messages and other content on their iPhone, but are encouraged to sign up for higher storage tiersonce the 5GB limit is exceeded. Which? claims that Apple is promoting its own cloud storage option and making it difficult to use alternative storage providers.
See also: Apple blocks Chinese trademark in Europe
Which? sued Apple on behalf of all iCloud users in the UK, regardless of whether they pay for a subscription plan for the service. Normally, a customer who has not suffered damage would not be eligible for compensation, but Which? has taken a unique approach.
The court said the lawsuit raises an “original” legal question, as it is not aware of any other case where damages for “lost consumer surplus”. Lost Consumer Surplus (FCS) is a legal theory that, in this case, holds that people who were unable to purchase an iCloud subscription due to Apple’s alleged market abuse suffered a tangible loss because they were not given the opportunity to purchase a service they wanted at a fair price in a competitive market.
For example, the 200GB tier of iCloud, which costs £2.99, could have cost just £1.99 at a “fair” price. Which? argues that a customer who theoretically would have paid £1.99 for the service, but was unable to do so because the actual price of £2.99 was unaffordable, suffered a loss of £1, even though the customer paid nothing. Damages claims are usually simpler, covering paying customers who suffered clear harm from inflated prices. Here, the case is different.
See also: United Kingdom: Pornhub uses Apple's age verification feature
What did the court decide?
While two members of the court sided with Which?, the other sided with Apple. The judge who opposed FCS warned that the case could lead to a flood of secondary claims from non-paying users based on hypothetical willingness-to-pay calculations.
Apple is not owed any damages at this point and now faces a lawsuit to determine whether it abused its position and gave preferential treatment to iCloud on iOS.
All eligible UK consumers are automatically included in the claim unless they opt out. Eligible consumers include those who purchased iCloud services between November 8, 2018 and the present. Which? estimates that Apple could owe UK customers an average of £70 in compensation.
See also: Apple: Pays $250 million for misleading AI Siri advertising
Which? wants Apple to settle the claim without litigation by offering consumers their money back and opening up iOS to allow users to choose a cloud provider.
Overall, this case highlights growing questions about the power of big tech companies and the extent to which they can shape consumer choices within their own ecosystems. The UK court case is not yet a condemnation for Apple, but it does pave the way for a major debate about competition in the cloud services and the rights of users to freely choose between different providers.
The final decision in the trial could be a landmark not only for Apple and iCloud, but for the entire technology industry, as it could affect how closed digital ecosystems operate in the future. At the same time, the case is expected to test new legal arguments, such as that of “lost consumer surplus,” which could influence similar claims at the international level.
