The U.K. government has lost its attempt to keep secret a high-stakes surveillance case it initiated against Apple. Marking a rare public reveal in a court system typically shrouded in secrecy.
According to a newly published ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London, portions of the case. Which involves a surveillance order directed at Apple—will now be made public, despite efforts by the U.K. government to suppress even the existence of the case.
Tribunal judges rejected the government’s claim that releasing the basic details of the legal proceedings would harm national security. “We do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security,” the court ruled.
This marks the first official confirmation that the case exists, although its specific contents remain heavily redacted.
Leaked information published earlier by The Washington Post indicates that the surveillance order sought to compel Apple to provide access to encrypted cloud data belonging to any of its users globally. The reported demand would effectively undermine Apple’s Advanced Data Protection. A security feature that enables end-to-end encryption for user data stored in iCloud.
In response to the reported legal order, Apple quietly pulled the feature from devices in the U.K., stating it could “no longer” offer it due to legal restrictions.
Neither Apple nor the Home Office—which initiated the surveillance request—have publicly commented on the legal battle. Citing national security rules that continue to prevent both sides from acknowledging or discussing the case in detail.
The ruling followed an appeal by Apple to the IPT, challenging the surveillance demand. In turn, the U.K. government argued that disclosing the case would pose a risk to national security. A position the court ultimately rejected.
The situation has sparked backlash from privacy advocates, civil society groups, journalists. And even a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers and former Trump-era intelligence officials. Who have all demanded transparency around how governments can pressure tech companies for access to encrypted user data.
Apple has consistently denied any involvement in weakening user privacy protections. The company has reiterated to different outlets that it has “never built a backdoor or master key” into any of its products or services. And that it “never will.”
While much of the case remains classified, the court’s decision signals a potential shift in how legal challenges involving encryption and surveillance might be handled in the U.K. Where transparency has long taken a back seat to state secrecy in national security matters.
The ruling could also set a precedent, opening the door for similar legal battles over encryption, data privacy. And tech accountability to be more openly scrutinized in the future.
