Why Gmail’s latest storage change should make everyone upset

Google is testing a rather interesting change to Gmail. New users found that they were restricted to just 5GB of cloud storage, but they had to add their phone number to their Gmail account to unlock the full 15GB.

Google confirmed this test to Android Authority, saying it applied to new users in some regions and was supposed to help provide “a high-quality storage experience.” It also asserted that this move encouraged users to protect their accounts and improve data recovery. Nevertheless, there’s something really shady about effectively dangling the existing cloud storage cap in exchange for a phone number.

There are a couple of good reasons why a cloud service provider would do something like this. As Google implies, adding a phone number to your Gmail account is one way to recover your account. There are other recovery options, too, though, such as adding a second email address or a recovery contact.

The company also suggests that adding a number will help users protect their accounts. However, Google prompts, passkeys, and other authentication methods are all more secure than text messages. After all, text-based authentication is prone to SIM swap attacks, phishing, and other attack methods.

I also imagine that Google wants to make life harder for spammers and scammers. These bad actors might be creating many accounts without a phone number. However, some regions require a phone number to create a Gmail account in the first place. I’m also guessing many cybercriminals have burner phone numbers via various VoIP platforms. Furthermore, the 5GB cap might not be an issue for cybercriminals in the first place, as they might not plan to use these accounts for a long time anyway.

Google’s claim that this is a test suggests that it might not be a permanent state of affairs. Nevertheless, this move doesn’t sit right with me. Even if the company means well, holding two-thirds of a new user’s cloud storage cap hostage seems extremely questionable. I’d be more open to Google requiring a phone number to open a Gmail account in the first place. However, the 5GB cap feels designed to hook people in and then eventually make them desperate enough to share their phone number. And this 5GB cap ostensibly affects Google Drive too, with colleague Rob Triggs pointing out that this could seriously affect WhatsApp backups.

The company could’ve offered more cloud storage in exchange for your phone number. In fact, it did similar things in previous years when it offered 2GB of extra cloud storage for users who performed a security checkup. But I guess extra storage costs money, especially in 2026.

It’s also worth noting that this 5GB Gmail cap is in line with the free iCloud Mail tier, but Apple doesn’t shove ads into its email platform. Meanwhile, Outlook offers 15GB of free storage, while Yahoo Mail offers 15GB or 20GB, depending on the region.

This also feels like more evidence of big tech luring people with free services and then forcing them to hand over cash or (in this case) personal info. This wouldn’t be the first time Google took this kind of approach. After all, Google Photos offered free media uploads for years until the company switched to a 15GB cap in 2021. It also comes as Google gradually degrades the free YouTube viewing experience in a bid to drive people to YouTube Premium. So you can understand why I’m skeptical of the company’s Gmail claims.

The one saving grace is that this Gmail test doesn’t seem to apply to existing users who are under the 5GB cap. This might be annoying for those same users who want to open an alternative email account, though, but Google apparently allows up to four accounts attached to the same phone number.

The phone number requirement also comes as the US government cracks down on dissent, while ICE detains and deports immigrants and citizens alike. So do you really want to give even more personal info to US companies in the first place?

In any event, I hope Gmail’s phone number shenanigans remain a test. Google might have some sensible reasons for wanting this 5GB cap, but it’s hard not to view this against the backdrop of previous actions against free users.