"The Reg has asked Apple for comment."
Who would reply (if they replied) that you should ask Amazon, as they would have that information. Because...
A US judge has approved a limited class action against Apple for breach of contract following a complaint that its iCloud used third-party servers, including "cloud storage facilities belonging to Amazon, Microsoft, or Google," to host customers' data rather than using its own machines. The case – which has been running since …
I disagree. It implies that Apple runs the system on which it is stored, which they do. It is encrypted as well for security. It doesn't suggest where Apple stores it, and renting servers from Amazon and storing it there doesn't change that. If I contracted you to store some data, then sued you because the building you put the tape in was rented from someone else, does that logic make sense?
Where it is physically stored is irrelevant, as Apple holds the encryption keys - and some data is further encrypted with the phone's device key so even Apple can't read it.
This is going to be thrown out of court pretty quickly, it is obvious ambulance chasing lawyers are behind this one.
but this lawsuit is ludicrous.
They bought a service from Apple and Apple is providing it.
Unless some key detail is missing here then the plaintiffs suffered zero harm as a result of the end location of the data and Apple made no commitment that the data hosting would be done in an Apple datacentre.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021