Apple is facing a significant legal challenge in the UK, where consumer rights group Which? has filed a £3 billion ($3.8 billion) lawsuit on behalf of approximately 40 million iCloud users. The lawsuit accuses Apple of breaching competition laws by giving preferential treatment to its iCloud service, effectively monopolizing the cloud storage market. According to Which?, Apple has exploited its control over the iOS operating system to lock users into using iCloud for storage needs, making it difficult for them to use alternative providers.
The legal claim asserts that iOS users are encouraged to store their data, including photos, notes, and messages, on iCloud while Apple restricts their ability to back up and store this information with third-party services. As users exceed the free 5GB storage limit, they are forced to pay for additional iCloud storage. Which? argues that this practice creates an unfair advantage for Apple and inflates prices for UK consumers, with a price hike between 20% and 29% in iCloud subscriptions in 2023 alone.
Apple has responded by denying the allegations, asserting that its pricing is comparable to other cloud storage services. The company insists that iCloud is not a compulsory service for iOS users and that many rely on third-party alternatives. Apple also highlights that nearly half of its users do not pay for iCloud+, either due to not needing extra storage or preferring not to use the paid service. The company maintains that it is committed to providing customers with choices, including options for transferring data to other services.
The legal action is currently being pursued on an opt-out basis for eligible UK consumers, with an estimated £3 billion in damages accounting for opt-outs, duplicates, and mortality. Which? is also urging Apple to settle the claim outside of court by refunding affected users and offering a more open, competitive market for cloud services. If the case proceeds, it will set a significant precedent for antitrust enforcement in the tech industry, particularly as similar cases against major tech companies continue to gain traction across the globe.
Reference:
