Apple Sued for 'All-Seeing Eye' Employee Device Monitoring Policy - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Apple Sued for 'All-Seeing Eye' Employee Device Monitoring Policy

California Apple employee Amar Bhakta has filed a lawsuit against Apple for alleged labor violations, accusing the Cupertino company of suppressing employee speech, invading employee privacy though surveillance and inspecting personal data, and clawing back earned wages (via Semafor).

Apple Park View
Bhakta sued Apple after Apple prohibited him from speaking about his work experience on podcasts and also instructed him to remove information about his "working conditions and work experiences" from his LinkedIn profile. He says that Apple's policies prevent employees from adequately describing their job responsibilities, accomplishments, and professional growth on sites like LinkedIn, hindering their ability to find employment.

Further, Bhakta claims that Apple employees are prohibited from disclosing the skills, knowledge, and experience they gained at Apple when working for a subsequent employer, plus they are not allowed to speak with each other or outsiders about problems at work like harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment.

Apple employees are required to use Apple devices, software, and services, and the devices "collect and use the valuable personal data" of employees during non-work periods. The lawsuit states that employees have to agree to physical, video, and electronic surveillance by Apple, with Apple able to search Apple and non-Apple devices and other property when an employee is on "company premises," including in a home office. The Apple ecosystem is described as a "prison yard" for employees, with workers subject to "Apple's all-seeing eye" both on and off duty.

The lawsuit takes issue with Apple's requirement that employees use Apple collaboration tools with an iCloud account, often a personal ‌iCloud‌ account. Bhakta says Apple allowed him to choose to use an Apple-owned iPhone or a personal iPhone for work, and when he chose his personal phone, Apple installed an eSIM and VPN, and required him to use his personal ‌iCloud‌ account to collaborate with colleagues. He claims that Apple has forced him to remain an Apple consumer, and that he is required to continue to patronize Apple.

Bhakta was hired at Apple in July 2020 as a Digital Ad Tech/Operations Manager, and he was required to sign documents listing the Apple policies that are cited in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of the California Labor Code as well as "appropriate injunctive relief" to protect California Apple employees from future violations.

Popular Stories

Jon Prosser Rainbow

Apple Agrees to Let Jon Prosser Formally Contest iOS 26 Leak Lawsuit

Thursday June 11, 2026 7:57 am PDT by
Apple and leaker Jon Prosser have jointly asked a federal court to set aside the default judgment entered against him last October, with Prosser agreeing to hand over documents he had thus far failed to fully produce. Apple filed suit against Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti in July 2025, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets after Prosser published videos showing recreated renderings of ...
iCloud General Feature Redux

UK iCloud Users Could Claim £77 Each as Apple Case Heads to Trial

Tuesday June 23, 2026 1:49 am PDT by
A class action lawsuit accusing Apple of overcharging U.K. iCloud users has been certified to go ahead, putting the £3 billion ($3.9 billion) claim on track for a trial in October 2028. According to BBC News, the Competition Appeal Tribunal cleared consumer group Which? to bring the case on behalf of an estimated 40 million U.K. iPhone and iPad owners, each of whom could receive up to £77...
app store blue banner epic 1

Supreme Court Will Hear Apple's Appeal in Epic Games App Store Fight

Tuesday June 30, 2026 10:34 am PDT by
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's appeal against the contempt ruling that forced it to change its App Store linking rules, reports Reuters. In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said the court's decision was welcome news. This is an important question of law and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case. Apple asked the Supreme Court to review the decision...

Top Rated Comments

RSmith2023 Avatar
21 months ago
I see several statements in there when he says "Apple allowed me to choose between an Apple owned device or a personal device for work" and he chose to use his personal device. I guess he thought that they shouldn't monitor his work related communications on his personal device? Easy fix - use the company device for work and your personal device for personal communications.

Just seems like this guy was looking for a way to file a claim and sue.
Score: 63 Votes (Like | Disagree)
21 months ago
maybe choose a company-owned device next time, instead of wasting judicial resources?
Score: 53 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kalsta Avatar
21 months ago

Loyalty comes with a price. Not willing to pay the price? Don't sign the dotted lines.
Sorry, but principles like loyalty and confidentiality always need to be balanced with the needs and human rights of the people. If you’re not free to ‘speak … about problems at work like harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment’, then the balance of power is pretty skewed.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
DocMultimedia Avatar
21 months ago
Should have read the employment contract.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cicalinarrot Avatar
21 months ago
ironic /ī-rŏn′ĭk/

adjective
[LIST=1]
* Characterized by or constituting irony.
* Given to the use of irony.
* Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended.



Attachment Image
Score: 39 Votes (Like | Disagree)
gleepskip Avatar
21 months ago
I don't like the appearance of some of these policies, but no one forced him to sign them or work for Apple.
Score: 35 Votes (Like | Disagree)