Apple Inc. has secured a legal victory in a case alleging that the tech giant engaged in monopolistic practices concerning its iCloud storage services.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee, presiding in San Jose, California, dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Apple violated federal or state antitrust laws. However, the judge granted them the opportunity to amend their complaint and refile the case, Reuters reported.
Allegations and Apple’s Defense
The lawsuit, initially filed in March 2024, accused Apple of coercing its customers into using iCloud for backing up essential data and device settings, thereby limiting consumer choice and inflating costs. The lead plaintiff, a Los Angeles resident, claimed she was paying $2.99 per month for iCloud storage and sought to represent a nationwide class of at least tens of millions of consumers with similar grievances.
Apple has consistently denied any wrongdoing, arguing that customers are not required to purchase iCloud storage and have access to third-party storage options for certain data types, such as photos and videos. However, Apple restricts third-party storage for system-critical files necessary for restoring a device. In its defense, the company maintained that these policies were designed to ensure security and a seamless user experience.
Judicial Findings
Judge Lee ruled that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support claims that Apple possesses monopoly power within the cloud storage market. She further noted that Apple’s pricing practices, if anything, could encourage competitors to expand their market presence and offer alternatives.
Next Steps
While Apple has emerged victorious for now, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Steve Berman, has indicated an intention to revise and refile the lawsuit, addressing the court’s concerns. Apple has yet to issue a public statement regarding the ruling.
The case, filed as Julianna Felix Gamboa et al v. Apple Inc., is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 5:24-cv-01270. The outcome of any future filings will be closely watched, as it may have broader implications for digital storage competition and consumer rights in the tech industry.
