# Apple's app tracking privacy framework could fall foul of German antitrust **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/apples-app-tracking-privacy-framework-could-fall-foul-of-german-antitrust/24928 **Category:** News **Tags:** article **Created:** 2025-02-13T15:50:30Z **Posts:** 28 ## Post 1 by @KevPham — 2025-02-13T15:50:30Z > **[Apple's app tracking privacy framework could fall foul of German antitrust...](https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/13/apples-app-tracking-privacy-framework-could-fall-foul-of-german-antitrust-rules/)** > > Germany's antitrust watchdog has been investigating Apple's app privacy framework since 2022. On Thursday, releasing preliminary findings from this probe, Germany’s antitrust watchdog agency believes that Apple’s app privacy features may amount to “self-preferencing” > The antitrust watchdog said it believes Apple’s behavior could amount to self-preferencing. Apple is banned from preferring its own services and products in Germany since [April 2023](https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/05/apple-germany-special-abuse-controls/), when it became subject to special abuse controls aimed at regulating big tech’s market power. > > Under the wider Pan-EU Digital Markets Act ([DMA](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/07/europes-dma-rules-for-big-tech-explained/)), Apple is also prohibited from self-preferencing on iOS and a handful of other core platform services such as the App Store. > > The app privacy issue being investigated now relates to Apple’s [App Tracking Transparency framework](https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/26/apples-app-tracking-transparency-feature-has-arrived-heres-what-you-need-to-know/) (ATTF), which lets iOS users instruct third party apps not to track their usage for ad targeting. Giving people more control over app permissions shouldn’t be an anti-trust issue :confused: --- ## Post 2 by @anon39279085 — 2025-02-13T17:53:37Z I agree it shouldn;t be giving that control but considering that apple themselves collect data to similar services (eg. Apple App Store, device telemetry even if you opt out, Apple Music and TV+ perhaps now that both has come on Android?) Illduing to that I can see the watchdog’s point but They have to be careful as if they do take action this way who kows if apple is gonna decide kiss A.T.T. goodbye. --- ## Post 3 by @a_user — 2025-02-14T01:38:48Z The correct injunctive action should be for Apple to play by the same rules they force their third party developers to play by. --- ## Post 4 by @Quantum — 2025-02-14T03:22:39Z But why is this a role of government? The EU legislation heavy approach to tech has caused lots of bad unintentional outcomes. Forcing third party app stores on iOS leading to malware downloads, mandatory USB-C halts innovation in connectors, and now targeting a pro-privacy feature in the OS. If customers think this is a problem they can buy a Samsung or Pixel or Fair phone or whatever. --- ## Post 5 by @a_user — 2025-02-14T03:57:17Z > [@Quantum](#): > > But why is this a role of government? It’s an anti-trust issue. This is anti-trust legislation. Where monopolies exist because of anti-competitive action (forcing users to not be able to choose where to get their apps), that anti-competitive action needs to be stopped because it is illegal - my understanding of the Sherman Act. The DMA legislation was a big win against monopolies in the EU. The Search Choice selection screen Google was forced to create for Android and Chrome makes people aware of other search engines they might like to use. I would also consider giving iPhone users more options and enforcing USB-C interop big wins for customers. Security or privacy are not good reasons for taking away customer choice; it’s often an excuse. > [@Quantum](#): > > If customers think this is a problem they can buy a Samsung or Pixel or Fair phone or whatever. This would be all well and good if Apple’s actions were legal, which the EU did not deem them to be. Now Apple users have more choices on where to get apps. As an app developer, I consider this fantastic. As someone who wants to get apps directly from the developer, this is great too. It’s also great that Chrome’s engine, which is more complete than Safari, can be used on iOS. As well as Firefox’s Gecko engine. And Ladybird’s libweb engine, in a few years. (The logic for the USB-C interop enforcement is something I’ll need to look into, but the sideloading enforcement is pretty cut-and-dry) * * * > **An EU Anti-Trust suit I don't agree with** > > As an aside, I think investigating AOM for AV1 and their royalty-free patents policy is pretty ridiculous, [which is something the EU has done in the past](https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-regulators-probing-tech-group-aoms-video-licensing-policy-2022-07-07/). > > Not least of all because patents are an artificial monopoly and royalty-free patents are the near-complete absence of one. I really can’t understand this point of view at all. > > So while I agree with the DMA, I don’t agree with every EU action. --- ## Post 6 by @anon80779245 — 2025-02-15T14:49:20Z > [@KevPham](#): > > Giving people more control over app permissions shouldn’t be an anti-trust issue :confused: This is false and I respectfully would except better from Privacy Guides team. In a nutshell, Apple is applying double standards. What the authorities are having a problem is that consent process for Apple own service is different from 3rd parties, and that the one Apple subject itself to is way less strict. From the article: “[T]he strict requirements under the ATTF only apply to third-party app providers, not to Apple itself,” the FCO wrote in a [press release](https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/02_13_2025_ATTF.html?nn=48916). “In the Bundeskartellamt’s preliminary view, this may be prohibited under the special abuse control provisions for large digital companies (Section 19a(2) of the German Competition Act (GWB)) and under the general abuse control provisions of Article 102 TFEU [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union].” “The consent dialogues for Apple’s own apps and for third-party apps differ substantially,” it goes on. “The current design, in particular the wording, of the dialogue for Apple’s own apps makes it more likely that users will consent than that of the ATTF dialogue for third-party apps.” --- ## Post 7 by @phnx — 2025-02-15T17:04:45Z Apple being forced to treat it’s apps the same as third party apps seems like the most likely outcoming rather than the app tracking transparency framework being removed across the board. --- ## Post 8 by @anon39279085 — 2025-02-15T17:29:29Z I’m just saying, you should’ve just sticked to more what we said or remove the first line. --- ## Post 9 by @anon80779245 — 2025-02-15T20:13:13Z Sorry but I dont see why I should edit anything. Privacy Guides shouldn’t defend Apple under a misleading approach. If OP is posting as a personal opinion, then it should be specified. --- ## Post 10 by @KevPham — 2025-02-27T20:37:33Z [https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/27/apple-might-be-forced-to-disable-a-key-iphone-privacy-feature-in-france/](https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/27/apple-might-be-forced-to-disable-a-key-iphone-privacy-feature-in-france/) Similar thing might happen in France too… --- ## Post 11 by @anon80779245 — 2025-02-28T11:23:05Z Original source [here](https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-faces-likely-french-antitrust-fine-privacy-tool-sources-say-2025-02-27/) --- ## Post 12 by @anon80779245 — 2025-03-31T11:01:35Z They got fined in France for this [https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/](https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/) --- ## Post 13 by @Quantum — 2025-04-01T02:41:35Z This is so stupid. They are being fined for a good privacy feature. This is not something that should even be admissible in a court. --- ## Post 14 by @phnx — 2025-04-01T07:09:55Z No, they are being fined for not applying the same privacy feature to their first party apps which a completely legitimate complaint. --- ## Post 15 by @anonfox — 2025-04-01T09:53:15Z You can also opt out from personalized ads from Apple if that’s what you mean by “privacy feature”. If you’re referring the prompt that shows up when apps request to track you though, you’re right that it’s not as clear to the user as the app tracking transparency. This will hopefully change with [In Re : Apple Data Privacy Litigation, 5:22-cv-07069 – CourtListener.com](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65748302/in-re-apple-data-privacy-litigation/) --- ## Post 17 by @Quantum — 2025-04-01T12:10:45Z > It added that the privacy tool “particularly penalized smaller publishers,” as they depend to a large extent on the collection of third-party data to fund their businesses They are being fined for not letting advertisers track their users. The suit was brought by advertising companies: > Alliance Digitale, the Syndicat des Regies Internet (SRI), the Union des Entreprises de Conseil et d’Achat Média (Udecam) and the Groupement des Éditeurs de Services en Ligne, which had complained to the French watchdog, **said the decision was a significant victory for advertisers**. --- ## Post 18 by @phnx — 2025-04-01T12:19:42Z [This article](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/france-fines-apple-e150m-for-excessive-pop-ups-that-let-users-reject-tracking/) is better. Read this: > The intent of ATT “is not problematic in terms of the likely benefits for users as regards privacy protection,” but “how the framework is implemented is abusive within the meaning of competition law,” the agency said. Apple’s “implementation methods artificially complicate the use of third-party applications and distort the neutrality of the framework to the detriment of small publishers financed by advertising,” it said. > Third-party publishers “cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations,” so they “must continue to use their own consent collection solution,” the French agency said. “The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the iOS environment excessively complex.” They explicitly state that the intention of ATT is perfectly fine. It’s how third-parties, especially small scale companies, are disproportionally negatively affected especially as a result of “double consent” which isn’t the case with Apple’s first party apps. --- ## Post 19 by @Quantum — 2025-04-01T14:16:36Z First I don’t think there is anything wrong with the company who spent the resources developing the processor, OS, and App Store to have separate treatment of third party apps. Those poor small scummy ad businesses we’re supposed to worry about wouldn’t even have a business at all if Apple hadn’t done the hard work for them. If someone doesn’t like that, they can buy a Pixel, Xperia, Samsung, OnePlus, etc. Apple doesn’t even have a majority position in EU market share. Secondly the end result of this ruling is just going to be Apple disabling the feature as there is no point in investing in anything else just so they can be sued again because some new judge doesn’t like the way they did it. This kind of over regulation is why there is no European equivalent to Apple or Google to being with. --- ## Post 20 by @anon99163603 — 2025-04-01T14:55:21Z How to be privacy-first, by Apple: - Collect user data, as defined by the ToS no one read when setting up their iPhones. - Use super well-designed and OS-integrated consent prompt that encourages users to give up more of their data. - Force 3rd-party apps to use the user-hostile prompt we designed. Also give the user option to always deny prompt. - Tell everyone “We care about privacy”, referencing only the above point. - Profit, unless the EU guys sue us. Did I get that right? --- ## Post 21 by @a_user — 2025-04-03T00:19:32Z > [@Quantum](#): > > This kind of over regulation is why there is no European equivalent to Apple or Google to being with. I don’t think [Symbian’s downfall](https://symbianfoundation.org/the-fall-of-the-symbian-os/) was “over regulation”. --- ## Post 22 by @anonfox — 2025-04-04T08:17:21Z [https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/03/brazil-investigating-apple-app-tracking-meta/](https://9to5mac.com/2025/04/03/brazil-investigating-apple-app-tracking-meta/) --- ## Post 23 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2025-10-25T15:21:25Z > **[Apple Warns App Tracking Transparency Could Be Disabled in Europe](https://www.macrumors.com/2025/10/23/apple-app-tracking-transparency-europe/)** > > Apple said today that it might be "forced" to disable a key anti-ad tracking feature in the European Union, reports DPA International. ... > Apple said today that it might be “forced” to disable a key anti-ad tracking feature in the European Union, reports DPA International. > “Intense lobbying efforts in Germany, Italy and other countries in Europe may force us to withdraw this feature to the detriment of European consumers,” Apple said in a statement to DPA. > Apple is referring to App Tracking Transparency (ATT), a feature that lets iPhone and iPad users decide whether to allow apps to track their activity across other apps and websites for advertising purposes. Users can choose to allow apps to ask for permission, or turn off tracking entirely. > Apple also said it will work to keep the feature available to Europeans. “We will continue to urge the relevant authorities in Germany, Italy and across Europe to allow Apple to continue providing this important privacy tool to our users.” --- ## Post 24 by @phnx — 2025-10-25T15:29:25Z The actual problem: > … Apple abused its market power with ATT, giving itself preferential treatment … They just don’t want to play by the same rules with ATT and are trying to blame the EU for that. --- ## Post 25 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2025-10-25T15:37:00Z There is that for sure. The ideal would be that this would somehow be an anti-ad feature for all adversaries including Apple. Although, not sure how removing this “preferential treatment” completely is better for everyone. --- ## Post 27 by @any1 — 2025-10-25T16:07:06Z How is this implemented? Is it a popup asking for tracking permission, and does it appear only once or every time the app opens? > [@Cyber-Typhoon](#): > > Apple is referring to App Tracking Transparency (ATT), a feature that lets iPhone and iPad users decide whether to allow apps to track their activity across other apps and websites for advertising purposes. Users can choose to allow apps to ask for permission, or turn off tracking entirely. What is the default setting? --- ## Post 28 by @anon61753997 — 2025-10-25T20:37:23Z > [@any1](#): > > What is the default setting? “to allow apps to ask for permission” is the default one, unless you’re a child, then “turn off tracking entirely” is the default one. > [@any1](#): > > Is it a popup asking for tracking permission, and does it appear only once or every time the app opens? An app can ask for the permission anytime the developers like, but the pop-up appears only once. ![](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/4/4dc11ae69502846cfca58a6c71df81037009d4db.jpeg) > [@any1](#): > > How is this implemented? A good question that no one seems to ask. The technical side of the App Tracking Transparency framework is very simple. Every device has a unique device ID. The App Tracking Transparency framework gives users a choice of whether to give it to developers. That’s it! **It doesn’t technically prevent tracking.** That’s why you can “allow” an app to track you or politely ”ask [the] app not to track you,” but cannot “deny” an app to track you. An app can use other techniques to fingerprint you if the developers want. Apple won’t reverse engineer an app to find out what’s inside, and if it did, it still doesn’t know what happens on the server side.