Apple iCloud Class Action Lawsuit, Monopoly Claims, Latest Updates & What You Need to Know
An active class action lawsuit alleges Apple illegally monopolizes cloud storage on iPhones and iPads by blocking third-party services from accessing critical backup files, forcing users to overpay for iCloud. On June 16, 2025, a federal judge denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, allowing monopolization claims to proceed. The case covers US consumers who purchased iCloud plans from March 1, 2020, onward.
What the Apple iCloud Class Action Lawsuit Alleges
The lawsuit, filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Apple maintains an illegal monopoly by restricting which files third-party cloud services can access on iOS devices.
Core Allegations Against Apple
Plaintiffs Felix Gamboa and lead counsel at Hagens Berman allege Apple:
- Blocks competitors from accessing “restricted files” needed to restore devices, including device settings, app configurations, and encrypted keychains
- Forces users to use iCloud for complete backups even if they prefer Google Drive, Dropbox, Microsoft OneDrive, or other services
- Charges supracompetitive prices for iCloud storage, with gross margins near 80% compared to Apple’s typical 40%
- Controls 96.1% of cloud storage revenue on Apple devices through anticompetitive restrictions
While Apple permits third-party cloud services to store photos, videos, and documents, only iCloud can back up system-level files necessary for full device restoration.
Sherman Act Violations Claimed
The lawsuit asserts Apple violates Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act through:
Monopolization: Maintaining monopoly power in the market for cloud storage on Apple mobile devices through exclusionary conduct
Attempted monopolization: Specific intent to monopolize and dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power
June 2025: Judge Denies Apple’s Motion to Dismiss
On June 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee ruled that plaintiffs adequately alleged Apple’s monopoly power and exclusionary conduct, allowing the antitrust claims to proceed.
What the Court Found
Judge Lee determined plaintiffs provided:
- Sufficient market definition: Cloud storage on Apple devices constitutes a distinct market separate from local storage
- Plausible monopoly power allegations: Apple’s 96.1% revenue share, combined with high barriers to entry and expansion
- Adequate exclusionary conduct claims: Apple’s design restrictions blocking third-party access are “coercive”
The court rejected Apple’s arguments that the case should be dismissed due to statute of limitations, noting uncertainty about when the violation accrued given Apple’s “ongoing enforcement” of its file restriction policy.
Apple’s Deadline to Respond
Apple was required to file a formal response to the complaint by July 7, 2025. The case now moves into discovery phase, where plaintiffs can obtain internal Apple documents and communications.
Apple’s Defense: Privacy and Security Claims
In its motion to dismiss, Apple defended its iCloud restrictions on several grounds.
Apple’s Primary Arguments
Security justification: “That design decision was and always has been a feature grounded in security and privacy considerations, given the sensitivity of the data required to restore one’s Apple device.”
Consumer choice: Users can disable iCloud entirely or use local backups via wired connection to computers.
No forced tying: Apple doesn’t require users to purchase iCloud storage plans—only to use iCloud for specific backup functions if they want cloud-based restoration.
The court found these arguments insufficient at the motion to dismiss stage, ruling plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the restrictions lacked legitimate technological or security justification.
Who Qualifies for the Apple iCloud Class Action
The proposed class includes:
All persons and entities who, as United States residents, bought any iCloud plan to store any iPhone or iPad data from March 1, 2020, through the date notice is sent to proposed class members.
This covers tens of millions of Apple users who purchased:
- 50GB plan ($0.99/month)
- 200GB plan ($2.99/month)
- 2TB plan ($9.99/month)
- 6TB or 12TB plans (higher tier pricing)
You typically don’t need to take action to join a class action when initially filed. If the case reaches settlement or trial victory, eligible class members will receive notice with instructions for claiming compensation.
What Plaintiffs Claim About iCloud Pricing
The lawsuit alleges Apple charges inflated prices because competition is eliminated.
Price Comparison Allegations
According to the complaint, Apple:
- Purchases bulk cloud storage from providers like Google at wholesale rates
- Marks up iCloud storage by as much as 61%
- Generates nearly pure profit from iCloud subscriptions due to lack of competitive pressure
- Maintains pricing “undisciplined by competition”
Plaintiffs argue that absent Apple’s restrictions, consumers could choose from numerous competitive cloud storage providers offering lower prices and better features.
How Apple Blocks Third-Party Cloud Services
The lawsuit details specific technical restrictions Apple imposes.
What Third-Party Services Can Store
Apps like Google Drive, Dropbox, Microsoft OneDrive, Sync.com, and IDrive can back up:
- Photos and videos
- Documents and PDFs
- Music files
- Downloaded content
What Only iCloud Can Access
Apple restricts third-party access to:
- Device settings and configurations
- App data and preferences
- Encrypted keychains and passwords
- Health data
- HomeKit device configurations
- Messages backup
These “restricted files” are essential for complete device restoration when upgrading to a new iPhone or iPad or recovering from device failure.
The Inconvenience of Split Cloud Services
Plaintiffs argue Apple’s restrictions force consumers into an inferior arrangement.
Users who prefer non-Apple cloud services must:
- Maintain iCloud account even if they don’t want it
- Pay for iCloud storage solely for restricted files
- Juggle multiple cloud accounts with different interfaces
- Split files between competing services
The complaint states this is “far less convenient than using a single cloud storage service capable of storing all file types in one location.”
Similar Dismissed Case: Rutter v. Apple Storage Lawsuit
A separate iCloud lawsuit met a different fate in December 2024.
What the Rutter Case Claimed
William Rutter and other plaintiffs alleged Apple deliberately misled users about iCloud storage management, arguing Apple’s “freemium” model was designed to frustrate users into purchasing paid storage tiers.
Why It Was Dismissed
On December 4, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal, finding:
- No actionable misrepresentation: Apple discloses iCloud terms before activation and makes no promises about storage management
- Voluntary service: Users can disable iCloud entirely
- No evidence of deception: 80% of users remain within the free 5GB limit
The court emphasized that as long as companies disclose terms and don’t make false promises, limited free tiers requiring paid upgrades don’t violate California consumer protection laws.
Key Difference from Gamboa Case
The Rutter case alleged deceptive marketing under California state consumer protection laws, while Gamboa asserts federal antitrust violations. The latter survived dismissal because it focuses on anticompetitive conduct restricting market competition rather than misleading advertising.
UK Lawsuit: £3 Billion iCloud Antitrust Case
Apple faces parallel litigation in the United Kingdom.
Consumer advocacy group Which? filed a £3 billion ($3.75 billion) antitrust lawsuit in UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleging Apple violates UK competition law by forcing users to rely on iCloud.
The UK case potentially affects 40 million Apple users dating back to October 1, 2015. If successful, average users could recover approximately £70 each.
DOJ Smartphone Monopoly Case: Broader Context
The iCloud lawsuit exists within a landscape of antitrust scrutiny against Apple.
March 2024: DOJ Files Major Antitrust Suit
The U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 16 state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple of monopolizing smartphone markets through various restrictions, including:
- Degrading cross-platform messaging
- Blocking “super apps” that facilitate platform switching
- Limiting non-Apple smartwatch functionality
- Suppressing mobile cloud streaming services
June 30, 2025: Motion to Dismiss Denied
U.S. District Judge Julien X. Neals denied Apple’s motion to dismiss the DOJ case, allowing monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to proceed.
The DOJ lawsuit and the iCloud class action share similar themes: Apple allegedly leverages control over its ecosystem to block competitors and harm consumers.
What Legal Experts Say About Apple’s iCloud Practices
Antitrust attorneys and consumer advocates have weighed in on the significance of the iCloud lawsuit.
“The court’s decision to allow these claims to proceed signals that judges are willing to scrutinize platform-based restrictions, especially when those barriers are baked into product design,” noted legal analysis from Proskauer Rose LLP following the June ruling.
Industry observers point to the importance of empirical market data in modern antitrust litigation. The plaintiffs’ use of Apple’s own expert testimony from a separate lawsuit—showing that comprehensive backup capability is consumers’ most valued iCloud feature—proved persuasive.
Timeline of Apple iCloud Litigation
March 1, 2024: Gamboa v. Apple class action filed in Northern District of California
August 16, 2024: Apple files motion to dismiss, arguing security justification and statute of limitations
February 2025: Judge Lee dismisses portions of original complaint for insufficient allegations
Spring 2025: Plaintiffs file second amended complaint with “substantial new allegations”
June 16, 2025: Judge Lee denies Apple’s renewed motion to dismiss on all grounds
July 7, 2025: Deadline for Apple to file formal response to complaint
December 24, 2025: Case remains in discovery phase; no settlement announced
What Happens Next in the Apple iCloud Lawsuit
The case now enters the discovery and class certification phases.
Expected Next Steps
Discovery (2025-2026): Plaintiffs will obtain internal Apple documents, communications, pricing analyses, and expert testimony about cloud storage markets and Apple’s design decisions.
Class certification motion: Plaintiffs must prove the case meets requirements for class action treatment, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
Summary judgment motions: Either party may move for judgment without trial if no genuine factual disputes exist.
Settlement negotiations or trial: Cases often settle during discovery. If no settlement is reached, trial could occur in 2027 or later.
Potential Outcomes and Compensation
If plaintiffs prevail through settlement or trial, remedies could include:
Monetary Relief
- Refunds or credits for iCloud storage purchases during the class period
- Damages based on overcharges compared to competitive market pricing
- Treble damages potentially available under federal antitrust law (triple the actual damages)
Injunctive Relief
- Requirement to allow third-party cloud services to access restricted files
- Policy changes ending exclusive iCloud access to device backup files
- Competitive pricing reflecting true market conditions
Class members typically receive modest per-person payments (often $50-$200) in consumer antitrust settlements, though amounts vary based on total settlement size and number of claimants.
How to Stay Informed About the iCloud Lawsuit
To track developments in the Apple iCloud class action:
Monitor legal news sites: ClassAction.org, TopClassActions.com, and legal tech publications regularly update case status
Check Hagens Berman website: The law firm representing plaintiffs maintains case information at hbsslaw.com/cases/apple-icloud-antitrust
Watch for class notices: If the case settles or reaches favorable verdict, class members will receive direct notice by mail or email
Court records: PACER (pacer.gov) provides access to federal court filings for a small fee
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a settlement in the Apple iCloud lawsuit?
No settlement has been reached as of December 24, 2025. The case is in early discovery following the June 16, 2025, ruling denying Apple’s motion to dismiss.
How much money can I get from the Apple iCloud lawsuit?
Compensation amounts are unknown. If the case settles or plaintiffs win at trial, payments will depend on total damages proven, settlement size, and number of claimants. Consumer antitrust settlements typically provide $50-$200 per person, though amounts vary.
Do I need to file a claim now?
No action is required now. If the case settles or plaintiffs win, eligible class members will receive notice with claim instructions. Save documentation of your iCloud purchases and payment history.
Who is included in the Apple iCloud class action?
All U.S. residents who purchased any iCloud storage plan for iPhone or iPad data from March 1, 2020, through the final settlement date or judgment date.
What if I only use the free 5GB iCloud plan?
The lawsuit focuses on consumers who purchased paid iCloud plans. Free tier users likely aren’t eligible for monetary compensation, though they could benefit from injunctive relief if Apple is ordered to change its policies.
Can I opt out and sue Apple individually?
Yes. When class certification occurs, you’ll receive notice with instructions for opting out if you prefer to pursue individual claims. Consult an attorney to evaluate whether individual litigation makes sense for your situation.
How long will the Apple iCloud lawsuit take?
Class actions typically take 2-5 years to resolve. Given that the case only recently survived motion to dismiss in June 2025, expect resolution no earlier than 2027-2028.
Does this lawsuit affect Apple users outside the US?
No. The Gamboa lawsuit only covers U.S. residents. However, UK consumers have a separate case filed by Which? that could provide relief to approximately 40 million affected users.
What is Apple’s response to the lawsuit?
Apple argues its design restrictions are “grounded in security and privacy considerations” to protect sensitive restoration data. The company maintains users have alternatives like local backups and that it doesn’t force anyone to purchase iCloud plans.
Will Apple change its iCloud policies?
Apple has not announced policy changes. If the company loses the case or settles, it may be required to allow third-party cloud services to access restricted files or make other modifications to its iCloud ecosystem.
Additional Resources
Court Documents: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-01270
Legal Representation: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP – hbsslaw.com
Consumer Complaints: Federal Trade Commission – ftc.gov/complaint
Antitrust Information: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division – justice.gov/atr
This article provides general information about the Apple iCloud class action lawsuit and is not legal advice. Case details are current as of December 24, 2025.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah