Requiring them to make a (free) Apple account doesn’t sound unreasonable.

“Go to https://account.apple.com/ and make one that doesn’t use your Apple corporate email” seems like a fair and legal work instruction to me.

That seems crazy to me. I've always had my employers either provide or offer to provide me with anything I'll use for work. Asking someone to use a non-corporate-managed account for work seems especially insane to me. I've never heard of that.

I don’t see as much difference as you seem to see here.

Day 1 at FooCorp: “As part of onboarding, please set up these two accounts, both of which FooCorp operates and bears all the costs for.”

Day 1 at Apple: “As part of onboarding, please set up these two accounts, both of which Apple operates and bears all the costs for.”

I've never heard of being asked by an employer to make an account associated to a non-work account (like a personal email). They should provision SSO, or at least use a company domain like apple.com or internal.apple.com for test accounts.

Day 1 at FooCorp: "Your email address is [email protected]. Conducting business activities with personal accounts is against policy and may result in disciplinary action including termination. It may also be a regulatory violation depending on industry."

I assume they want the developers to dogfood the software they work on. Not crazy if so.

This may have been an optional iCloud 2TB promotion for employees, but still relevant to the lawsuit.

I'm also under the impression that Apple requires its employees to dogfood their products and services. Hoping someone with personal experience and a lapsed NDA can chime in.