Apple is facing fresh legal pressure on two fronts, with allegations over its privacy promises to iCloud customers emerging as a long-running fight over App Store commissions continues in US federal court.

A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in California alleges Apple misled customers about the privacy protections included with its iCloud+ subscription.

The lawsuit, brought by California resident Edward Rickman, claims customers paid for iCloud+ because Apple promised its Private Relay feature would conceal their IP addresses and browsing activity.

According to the complaint, flaws in Apple’s WebKit browser engine, along with software updates released in 2025 and 2026, allegedly allowed users’ IP addresses to be exposed.

The suit accuses Apple of deceptive marketing and failing to deliver the privacy protections customers were promised. It is seeking at least US$5 million in damages, as well as an injunction targeting the alleged misrepresentations. Apple had not yet responded to the allegations.

At the same time, Apple is continuing its battle over how much it can charge developers when customers make purchases through links that take them outside the App Store.

Apple requested to pause proceedings while the Supreme Court considers the company’s challenge to a civil contempt finding, however this was rejected by a US federal judge.

The dispute stems from Apple’s long-running legal battle with Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, which accused Apple of operating an anti-competitive “walled garden” and forcing developers to use Apple’s payment system.

In 2021, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled largely in Apple’s favour, but ordered the company to allow developers to direct customers to external payment options.

Apple then imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through those external links.

Judge Rogers later ordered Apple to stop charging the fees, finding in April 2025 that the company had “willfully” failed to comply with her injunction. The Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s request for an emergency stay, while the Supreme Court agreed to review the contempt finding.

The Supreme Court is expected to consider the contempt issue during its term beginning in October, but Judge Rogers has made clear that the lower-court proceedings over an appropriate commission rate can continue.

She said determining the final commission was a factual issue requiring further evidence, and questioned Apple’s previous conduct in the case.

While the two Apple disputes are separate, they highlight an increasingly significant challenge for the company in how far it can extend its control over its ecosystem before regulators, courts, developers and/or customers push back.