Apple Takes UK Government Back to Court Over Demand to Read Encrypted User Data
Apple has filed a second legal challenge against a British government order requiring access to data so heavily protected that even Apple cannot read it. The case could decide whether end-to-end encryption survives as a meaningful privacy tool in the UK.
Key points
- Apple filed a new legal complaint in early 2025 at the UK tribunal that handles challenges to covert surveillance orders.
- The complaint targets a Home Office demand for backdoor access, meaning a secret built-in method for authorities to read encrypted user data, to iCloud's Advanced Data Protection system.
- Apple withdrew its Advanced Data Protection feature from new UK users in February 2025 rather than comply with the original order.
- A revised government request issued in October 2025 narrowed the demand to exclude US users, after American politicians objected to the first order.
- Privacy groups Liberty and Privacy International are running parallel legal challenges to the same regime of secret orders.
Apple has gone back to court against the UK government, filing a fresh legal complaint at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the specialist court that handles disputes over how the British state uses its surveillance powers. BBC Technology first reported the filing. Apple has not said publicly what the new complaint covers, but the Financial Times reported it targets yet another demand for backdoor access to iCloud data.
What is a backdoor, and why does it matter?
A backdoor is a hidden way into a locked system, built deliberately so that someone other than the owner can get in. Apple's Advanced Data Protection feature, which users can switch on voluntarily, applies end-to-end encryption to iCloud backups, photos, voice memos and stored files. End-to-end encryption means only the device owner can read the data; not Apple, not hackers who intercept it, and not governments. A backdoor would change that.
Apple's position has not shifted. "We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," the company said, repeating a statement it first issued after its initial legal challenge.
How did this fight start?
The UK government used the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a law that lets ministers issue secret "technical capability notices" forcing companies to give security services access to customer data, to demand Apple open up Advanced Data Protection. Apple refused and instead pulled the feature entirely for new UK users in February 2025, meaning British customers can no longer sign up for the highest level of iCloud protection.
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Original Home Office order issued | Early 2025 |
| Apple withdraws Advanced Data Protection for new UK users | February 2025 |
| First legal challenge filed by Apple | Early 2025 |
| US politicians raise objections; first order withdrawn | Spring 2025 |
| Revised order issued, excluding US users | October 2025 |
| New Apple legal complaint filed | Late 2025 |
The first order was eventually withdrawn after US politicians complained it could expose American citizens' data. A replacement order, issued in October, was redrawn to apply only outside the United States.
Should ordinary people in the UK be worried?
If you are a UK resident using iCloud, you cannot currently enable Advanced Data Protection at all. That means Apple can technically access your cloud backups if ordered to do so, though separate legal authorisation is still required before any specific data request goes through.
Liberty's director of external relations Ruth Ehrlich put it plainly: "Opening a backdoor to all of that information carries a wide range of risks to our personal data," covering bank details, health records, private messages and images.
The government argues access is "necessary and proportionate" to tackle terrorism, serious crime and child sexual abuse. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, Sir Brian Leveson, has previously pushed back on the term "backdoor" specifically, noting that any notice requires sign-off from both a Secretary of State and an independent Judicial Commissioner. The legal argument about what counts as "proportionate" is precisely what the tribunal will now decide.
