Apple issues new challenge against UK order for access to private user data
Apple has launched a fresh legal complaint against the UK government at the tribunal that hears challenges to covert surveillance powers, escalating its dispute over Home Office demands for access to encrypted user data. Although Apple has not detailed the complaint, it is reported to relate to a Home Office order for "backdoor" access to data protected by Apple's Advanced Data Protection feature, which even Apple cannot currently view. The case matters because it centres on the balance between government access for law enforcement purposes and the privacy of encrypted communications used by millions of iPhone users.
The dispute dates back to early 2025, when the government first used powers under the Investigatory Powers Act to issue a secret "technical capability notice" demanding access; that notice was withdrawn after it angered US politicians, but a revised request was issued in October that excludes American users. Since February 2025, Apple has been unable to offer Advanced Data Protection to new UK users, and it maintains it has never built a "backdoor" and never will. The government says it will not comment on legal proceedings but insists it needs proportionate access to combat terrorism, serious crime and child sexual abuse, while privacy groups Liberty and Privacy International have welcomed Apple's renewed challenge as crucial to protecting encryption for everyone.
- Apple lodges new legal complaint over UK's encrypted data access demands.
- Dispute involves secret Home Office orders under the Investigatory Powers Act.
- UK users still can't enable Apple's Advanced Data Protection feature.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of the Home Office's position argue that end-to-end encrypted storage can become a safe haven for the most serious criminal material, including child sexual abuse imagery and terrorist planning, and that law enforcement needs a lawful route to access specific, warranted data to investigate such crimes. They contend that no company should be able to place data entirely beyond the reach of a court order, and that properly overseen access powers are a legitimate extension of long-standing investigatory principles into the digital realm.
The case against
Apple and privacy advocates argue that any backdoor or forced weakening of end-to-end encryption undermines security for all users, since a vulnerability built for one government cannot reliably be restricted to that government alone and may be exploited by criminals or hostile states. They hold that strong, universal encryption is essential to protecting journalists, dissidents, domestic abuse survivors and ordinary citizens from surveillance and data breaches, and that compelling a single company to build such access sets a precedent other states would likely demand too.