Nearly every iPhone owner has experienced a brief, peculiar moment. A notification appears at the top of the screen while you’re attempting to backup your pictures or configuring a new device. It’s full in your iCloud. You can purchase additional storage. Press this. It’s a reflex for most people. You give a tap. You pay the $2.99, $9.99, or whatever tier you’ve fallen into. After that, you forget about it in the same way that you forget about a subscription that never speaks up but also never truly disappears.
The Gamboa v. Apple lawsuit is essentially about that reflex multiplied over four years across tens of millions of Americans. Apple is accused of operating an unlawful monopoly on cloud storage for iPhones and iPads in a lawsuit filed in March 2024 in the Northern District of California by Hagens Berman, the same firm that previously won antitrust settlements from Apple over e-books and the App Store. The plaintiffs provide startling figures. Their complaint claims that Apple owns about 96.1% of the money made from cloud storage on Apple devices. That isn’t dominance. Near-totality, that is.
| Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Julianna Felix Gamboa et al. v. Apple Inc. |
| Case Number | 5:24-cv-01270 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Presiding Judge | Hon. Eumi K. Lee |
| Filing Date | March 1, 2024 |
| Plaintiff’s Lead Firm | Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro |
| Apple’s Defense Counsel | Latham & Watkins (Belinda Lee, Sarah Ray) |
| Core Allegation | Unlawful tying of iCloud to iOS devices; monopolization of cloud storage for Apple devices |
| Disputed Market Share | Apple’s alleged 96.1% share of cloud storage revenue on Apple devices |
| Free Storage Offered | 5GB per iCloud account |
| Paid Plan Entry Price | $0.99/month (50GB) |
| Key Ruling | Motion to dismiss denied on June 16, 2025 after second amended complaint |
| Related UK Case | Which? v Apple — ~£3 billion claim over alleged iCloud lock-in |
| Potential Class Size | Tens of millions of U.S. iCloud subscribers over four years |
Although complex, the mechanism at the heart of the case is important to comprehend. You can use Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, or any other third-party service to backup your images and videos from Apple. When your phone dies, you are unable to backup the things that truly matter. app information. settings for the device. iTunes purchases. Only iCloud backups are possible for those. Therefore, whether you intended to be an iCloud customer or not, you are practically an iCloud customer the moment you need to restore a lost iPhone. The plaintiffs point out that Samsung permits all file types to be sent to any cloud provider. The complaint claims that Apple’s own backend employs the same infrastructure for all file types, undermining Apple’s security rationale for the restriction.
It appeared for a time that Apple would escape unscathed. Judge Eumi K. Lee dismissed the initial complaint in February 2025, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated monopoly power and that consumers were not obligated to purchase iCloud. For a few months, it seemed as though Cupertino had won the case. It wasn’t. In March, the plaintiffs returned with a second amended complaint that was sharper and fatter, filled with what Judge Lee would later refer to as “substantial new allegations.” She rejected Apple’s revised motion to dismiss on all grounds on June 16, 2025.
It’s worthwhile to sit with what changed. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs had now made a convincing case for Apple’s monopoly power using indirect evidence, such as the company’s nearly complete market share, persistent competitor stagnation, and what she called “barriers to expansion for rivals.” The idea that Apple’s file restrictions amount to a “technological tie” between iPhones and iCloud was also supported by her opinion. That’s significant in the world of antitrust. This indicates that the claim is supported not only by Apple’s pricing but also by the design of its product. It is difficult to argue against design-as-coercion when a company’s supporters consistently present lock-in as a user experience. The fact that it withstood a motion to dismiss indicates that the plaintiffs’ attorneys did something out of the ordinary.
Now, the case is being pursued concurrently with a nearly £3 billion lawsuit in the UK, which is being spearheaded by the consumer advocacy group Which?, which is essentially making the same claim on behalf of British consumers. In both jurisdictions, Apple has declared the allegations to be unfounded. The stance has shifted, but it’s still unclear if the American case will ever go to a jury—most class actions of this size settle long before that. Apple was on the attack a year ago, filing motions, winning decisions, and ignoring the criticism. It must now respond to a complaint that the court has already deemed to be credible.
As this develops, it seems as though the days of idly protecting the walled garden are coming to an end. Through the Digital Markets Act, the European Union has already compelled Apple to open portions of its ecosystem. Washington regulators are circling. The same architecture that gives an iPhone its seamless feel has now been examined by a federal judge in San Jose, who gave it a different name. forceful. No one knows yet if Apple writes a check and moves on, or if that word survives the trial. However, the 5GB of free storage, which for years seemed like a minor annoyance, is beginning to seem like more in some legal contexts.
