iCloud lawsuit fails over misunderstanding of storage tiers

AppleInsider

A woman took Apple to court for giving her 200 GB of iCloud storage instead of the 205 GB she expected -- and lost.

iCloud lawsuit fails. Image source: Apple

A Ninth Circuit panel has rejected an appeal claiming Apple misled iCloud users. The plaintiff expected 205 GB total but received only 200 GB, as the free 5 GB tier was not added to the paid 200 GB plan.

The court said plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg didn't allege a valid breach of contract. She also didn't show that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Apple's iCloud storage representations.

The ruling, filed July 23, 2025, leaves the dismissal of her proposed class action in place. Bodenburg argued that when she bought a 200 GB iCloud plan, Apple should have stacked it on top of the 5 GB of free storage every user gets on signup.

Apple treats paid storage as a replacement allocation, not an add-on. The panel found no misleading language that would support her interpretation.

The claim and Apple's position

The complaint centered on the difference between "more" storage and "additional" storage. Bodenburg read Apple's marketing to mean she would retain the 5 GB free tier and gain 200 GB more.

Apple's documentation states that users begin with 5 GB of free storage and can upgrade to iCloud+ for larger single allocations. That implies a swap rather than a sum.

The panel concluded that Apple's description of an upgrade reasonably signals a move from one storage level to another. Because the service agreement and support materials show users choose a new plan size, the judges saw no actionable misrepresentation.

Understanding iCloud storage tiers

Apple gives every iCloud account 5 GB of free storage for backups, photos, and sync data. Users who outgrow that space can upgrade to iCloud+. Apple iCloud+ offers paid tiers starting at 50 GB and scaling through 200 GB, 2 TB, 6 TB, and 12 TB.

Added privacy features such as Private Relay and Hide My Email are tied to the subscription. When you upgrade, your account reflects the new plan size.

Apple's support pages tell users to "upgrade to iCloud+" or "change storage plan." That wording suggests the new plan replaces the free 5 GB, not adds to it.

Consumer tech class actions often depend on whether marketing would mislead a typical user. The court found Apple's upgrade language, supported by documentation, clear enough, even if some users expected more.

That makes it unlikely that minor storage disputes like this will succeed on appeal. The ruling supports Apple's iCloud+ model as legally sound within the Ninth Circuit.



Read on AppleInsider

skippingrock

wow, umm, like really?
How much of your tax payer's money was wasted for this *brilliant* case?

misterkit

Some people just don't have a life. What a pity.

melgross

It’s amazing what people will sue over. What would the extra 5gb storage be worth a month? Less than a dollar for certain, considering what the 200gb tier costs.

bluelightning

I'd guess there are a lot of older folks like me who have less than 2gb storage used on their free 5gb tier iCloud storage allocation. Suspect you'd need to be into video storage and editing, online photography or design work to need anywhere close to 200gb. I can remember when a 5mb disk drive was considered large for home use, and cost a lot. Many of the early home machines only had floppy disk(s) or cassette tape.

mims

I appreciate that courts don't want to create a chilling effect by making people who lose cases like these pay attorneys' fees for the winning side, but damn, it's suits like these that cost the consumer millions over the long haul. Apple (and most corporations) have to staff attorneys just to fight these frivolous lawsuits. This woman was hoping that Apple would setting and give her some cash. I'd bet that she's either an attorney herself or got one to take the case on contingency. In other words, probably she lost nothing but her time. Instead, she (along with hundreds of other ridiculous claims against Apple) just hit us all in our wallet when we buy our next Apple device. 

sflocal

This was nothing more than a fishing-expedition for some pond-scum lawyer looking for a quick-buck.  Had the "victim" won, the next step would be an immediate cash-grab by the lawyer and file a class-action lawsuit where the big money is.

It's crap like this is why we have volume-sized TOS agreements and warning-stickers on plastic bags.  

dewme

This is the absolute epitome of a pissant lawsuit. 

victormortimer

What a missed opportunity for Apple!

"Hey, we can understand why you thought it should be 205 GB, and we agree with you!  We're upping everybody's storage on the 200 GB tier to reflect that it includes the 5 GB free iCloud!"

Would cost Apple almost nothing, LOTS of goodwill.  It probably cost them more to fight it.

Sad.

sunman42

I wonder how much the plaintiff owes her lawyers and (to cover court costs) the Ninth Circuit. I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but I get the impression she received poor advice from her attorney.

wesley_hilliard

VictorMortimer said:

What a missed opportunity for Apple!

"Hey, we can understand why you thought it should be 205 GB, and we agree with you!  We're upping everybody's storage on the 200 GB tier to reflect that it includes the 5 GB free iCloud!"

Would cost Apple almost nothing, LOTS of goodwill.  It probably cost them more to fight it.

Sad.

5GB is literally nothing. The person that filed the lawsuit had a fundamental misunderstanding, and Apple rewarding that would encourage more idiotic behavior from grifters.

charlesn

What kind of idiot plaintiff and attorney file a lawsuit over 5GB of storage? Even if you "win," which was never going to happen here, what kind of award do you think you'll get when 8GB flash drives are going for 2 bucks a piece? I doubt the plaintiff decided to take on this expense herself, it was probably an ambulance-chaser lawyer convincing her to do it on a contingency basis. And he was expecting a quick settlement and payout from Apple. Of course, even the most casual research of Apple and litigation would reveal that Apple will spend you into oblivion fighting tooth and nail over every legal step, and any "win" in that process along the way will be temporary as Apple will tie you up for years with unending legal expenses in endless appeals. Ask Masimo, which spent over $100 million fighting Apple and essentially got nothing to show for it. So yeah, even an ambulance chaser should know this isn't the emergency vehicle that's worth your time to pursue. 

edited July 24

madtinkerer

And I thought the article might be about 1000K vs 1024K (i.e 1 Megabyte/s). 204,800,000,000 bytes could be 200GB (Perhaps she just needs a different perspective to be content?). Your thoughts?

brian_001

Literally! people have that much free time. 

macgui

This is how Apple operates replacing vs. adding to. Getting 2 years of AppleCare doesn't give a customer 3 years of coverage. (That could have changed since the last time I bought it.) Likely the plaintiff was suing on imagined principle not monetary gain. Most grifters would realize the poor return on investment for this exercise in ridiculousness. Not very reasonable but if not malicious or grifting then I'd cut her a little slack.

Class actions suits are necessary as sometimes wrongs are not righted otherwise. Lawyers get paid big money and plaintiffs don't. But there is justice done. Then there are nuisance lawsuits, plaintiffs out for the grift from the outset. I think this one as ridiculous as it is falls somewhere in between and was a big waste of time and resources. Sometimes a windmill is just a windmill.