The iCloud antitrust lawsuit against Apple has reached the point where Apple is asking a U.S. court to help it gather evidence from Samsung in South Korea. That request is set for hearing on October 27, 2026. It is a sign of how deep into discovery Gamboa v. Apple Inc. has gone since Apple lost its last bid to have the case dismissed in June 2025. For iCloud subscribers, though, nothing has changed: there is no settlement, no certified class and nothing to file.
Status: Lawsuit filed March 1, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; in discovery | No settlement — nothing to claim, and no class certified
The Allegation: Only iCloud Can Restore an iPhone
The complaint splits the data on an iPhone or iPad into two groups. Photos, videos and similar files can go to Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive or any other cloud service. The second group, which the complaint calls “Restricted Files,” is app data and device settings, and the plaintiffs allege Apple lets only iCloud store it.
Those restricted files are what rebuild a phone after it is replaced or reset. The complaint alleges that because rivals cannot hold them, no competitor can sell a complete backup. A rival can offer only a partial product that still leaves the customer needing an iCloud plan, and the complaint says most people will not pay for two cloud services and split their files between them.
On that basis, the plaintiffs bring Sherman Act claims for tying iCloud to Apple’s devices, monopolization and attempted monopolization of what they define as a market for cloud storage on Apple mobile devices. They allege iCloud holds more than 70 percent of that market. A California subclass adds a claim under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint also alleges Apple’s iCloud gross margins approach 80 percent, well above Apple’s overall margins.
Samsung is the complaint’s main comparison: a phone maker that runs its own cloud service but still lets owners back up an entire phone to Google Drive. That explains why Samsung’s practices have become a discovery target.
Apple denies the allegations. None of them has been proven.
Three Attempts to Dismiss
| March 1, 2024 | Complaint filed. The case is reassigned twice and lands with Judge Eumi K. Lee in August 2024. |
| May–June 2024 | Apple moves to dismiss; the plaintiffs amend instead, adding a second named plaintiff, which moots the motion. |
| February 28, 2025 | Apple’s second motion to dismiss is granted in part. The court also refers the case to private alternative dispute resolution as routine case management. |
| March 21, 2025 | Second amended complaint filed. |
| June 16, 2025 | Judge Lee denies Apple’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, without oral argument. |
| July 21, 2025 | Apple answers the complaint. |
Denying a motion to dismiss is not a finding against Apple. It means only that the claims, taken as written, are legally sufficient to go forward. Nine days after Apple answered, the court refused Apple’s request to split discovery into phases and invited the parties to propose a schedule for an early summary judgment motion on statute-of-limitations issues.
Discovery Fights in 2026
Discovery is handled by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi, mostly through the district’s joint letter-brief process. The case schedule was amended by stipulation in October 2025 and again in December 2025. Three recent developments stand out:
- An executive deposition. A dispute the court’s order captions as the Cue deposition dispute was decided by Judge DeMarchi on August 24, 2026.
- Evidence from Samsung. On August 31, 2026, Apple asked the court to issue a letter of request to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in South Korea, seeking evidence through the Hague process. The motion was referred to Judge DeMarchi the same day, with a hearing set for October 27, 2026.
- A tighter protective order. On September 9, 2026, the court entered an amended protective order. The parties said non-parties served with subpoenas wanted to limit their material to outside counsel only, with an added restriction when the producing party is a direct competitor of Apple in cloud or data storage. The order decides nothing on the merits, but it shows how far third-party discovery now reaches.
The private ADR referral is still in place. The parties have twice asked for more time on that deadline. The first request was denied in April 2026, and an amended version was granted the next month. An ADR referral is standard in the Northern District of California and does not mean a settlement exists or is near. No trial date is on the public docket.
The Named Plaintiff Who Left
In April 2026, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the individual claims of the plaintiff whose name is on the caption. The supporting papers were filed in redacted form, with the underlying material sealed. Apple opposed. On July 14, 2026, the court granted the motion with conditions, and a stipulation dismissing that plaintiff with prejudice was filed on August 27, 2026.
The lawsuit continues with the second named plaintiff, added in June 2024. Captions do not change when a named plaintiff leaves, so the case still carries its original name.
Who Could Eventually Be Covered
As pleaded, the proposed nationwide class covers U.S. residents who bought any paid iCloud plan to store iPhone or iPad data from March 1, 2020 through the date of class notice, plus a California subclass. No class has been certified and no certification motion has been decided. Class definitions are often narrowed at certification, and certification can be denied altogether. Until a class is certified, people in the proposed class have no role in the case. Whether you keep or cancel an iCloud plan now does not affect membership in a class that does not yet exist. Keeping records of what you paid is a reasonable habit.
Not the Same as Other Apple Cases
This is a private U.S. consumer class action in San Jose about the price of iCloud plans. The UK collective action over iCloud pricing is a separate case for British consumers, and U.S. subscribers are not part of it. The Justice Department’s antitrust suit against Apple is a government case about smartphone competition in general, and government enforcement actions do not pay consumers. OpenClassActions.com follows the San Jose case on its Apple iCloud antitrust case update.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there anything to claim in the Apple iCloud antitrust lawsuit?
No. There is no settlement, fund, administrator or claim form, and no class has been certified. The case is in discovery in the Northern District of California and the allegations remain unproven.
Who is in the proposed iCloud class?
As pleaded, U.S. residents who bought any paid iCloud plan to store iPhone or iPad data from March 1, 2020 through the date of class notice, with a separate California subclass. No court has certified a class, and the definition could change or be rejected.
Did Apple lose when the judge denied its motion to dismiss?
No. The June 16, 2025 ruling means only that the claims, taken as pleaded, are legally sufficient to proceed. Apple has answered and denies liability, and the case still faces discovery, class certification and summary judgment or trial.
Why is Samsung involved?
The complaint points to Samsung as a phone maker that runs its own cloud service while still letting owners back up a whole phone to Google Drive. Apple moved on August 31, 2026 for a letter of request seeking evidence from Samsung Electronics in South Korea, set for hearing October 27, 2026.
Does the case end because the named plaintiff left?
No. The caption plaintiff’s individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, but a second named plaintiff added in June 2024 remains and the case continues under its original name.
Sources
- Docket — Gamboa v. Apple Inc., No. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD) (N.D. Cal.)
- Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 62 (Feb. 28, 2025)
- Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. 64 (Mar. 21, 2025)
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 70 (June 16, 2025)
- Order Granting Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Conditions, Dkt. 113 (July 14, 2026)
- Motion for Issuance of a Letter of Request to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Dkt. 123 (Aug. 31, 2026)
- Stipulation and Amended Protective Order, Dkt. 131 (entered Sept. 9, 2026)
- OpenClassActions.com — Apple iCloud Antitrust Class Action: Apple Lost Its Dismissal Bid and the Case Is in Discovery
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: Apple iCloud Antitrust Class Action: Apple Lost Its Dismissal Bid and the Case Is in Discovery — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.