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

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.

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

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.

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".

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

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 ('https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c932d1r0p96o'), 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 ('https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/14/apple-uk-lawsuit-trapping-icloud-customers/') 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 ('https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/14/apple-uk-lawsuit-trapping-icloud-customers/').

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 ('https://www.macrumors.com/2026/06/23/apple-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.