Apple abused its dominant position with its App Tracking Transparency policy, which forces apps to obtain permission before collecting data to target users with personalized ads, the authority said in a statement.
They're arguing this because hitting the accept cookies button needs to be pressed twice instead of once. Lol
It’s actually the first time to allow the app (whether Apple or 3rd party app) to get the customer data.
The second time is to share or sell the data. Apple doesn’t sell/share data so they don’t have a second prompt. The other apps do so they do have a second prompt.
Italians are saying bundle the app and the sell/share under one prompt so the users have to either give permission in an all or nothing deal.
The investigation revealed that since the ATT prompt does not meet the requirements that
privacy legislation imposes on developers with regard to the acquisition of consent, such developers
are required to also resort to their own prompt to acquire consent (so-called CMP prompt), which is
thus in addition to the ATT prompt imposed by Apple. This means that, within the iOS system, thirdparty developers are required to request consent a second time for the same purpose, namely for the
collection and linking of data for advertising purposes.
Just another case of malicious compliance by Apple. Good thing that they got fined.
Not entirely true. I can tell most of these comments haven't read the ruling. The problem is literally in the title, abusing dominance:
Apple was able to unilaterally impose the aforementioned rules laid down by the ATT policy on third-party app developers, without those developers being consulted in any way beforehand.
The ruling also specifically says they aren't challenging the safeguards.
I linked the literal summary from court and got downvoted to hell, you can't expect the echo chamber to read before commenting, let alone reason. But you can't expect much more from a bunch of teenagers.
Apple is being fined for abusing their dominant position, not for "clicking twice".
We read and it's still pretty much it. "It's not for X, it's for Y" pretty much every detrimental government regulation is justified under some innocent sounding pretext, we're not uninformed we're just not buying it.
App developers usually aren't consulted in OS changes. That hardly seems a reason to fine Apple when there isn't settled law saying they shouldn't do what they did, or that they had an obligation to consult developers, especially when it seems to discourage pro consumer features under the theory the sellers have to have input too.
If you ask me, the EU is totally out of its mind and doesn't have any experts in place. They are just running out of money because they waisting to much money and so they grabbing it from Big Tech companies.
Apple was the first company, who give its users at least some control about tracking and privacy protection and now they claiming this? That's insane. The EU doesn't even know what they are talking about and has absolutely no clue what they are doing. It is a shame to see what idiots the EU has in its parliament.
The core of the issue is Apple's "App Tracking Transparency" (ATT) policy:
1) The regulator found that Apple’s pop-up wasn't enough to satisfy European privacy laws on its own. Because of this, app developers were forced to show you two separate pop-ups to get permission to use your data for ads.
2) The AGCM argued that Apple was being hypocritical. They found that while third-party developers were forced to show these scary-looking "Do Not Track" prompts, Apple’s own apps and services didn't have to follow the same restrictive rules. This gave Apple's own advertising business an unfair leg up over everyone else.
3) Because Apple owns the App Store, developers have no choice but to follow Apple's rules if they want to reach iPhone users. The regulator ruled that:
-.Apple unilaterally imposed these rules without negotiating.
-.The rules were disproportionate, meaning Apple could have protected user privacy without hurting competitors' businesses so badly.
You can believe Apple's lie that they "protect their users' privacy" all you wnat, but the reality has always been that Apple wants to protect their profits and their profits only.
It literally says that the pop-up is crafted against the current regulation: not that it does not need to appear. Reading comprehension anyone?
From the very summary which you obviously did not read or not understand:
In this regard, it is worth noting that the Authority does not hereby in any way challenge
Apple’s potentially legitimate decision to adopt safeguards designed to strengthen – also beyond what
is strictly necessary – the protection of users’ privacy within the iOS system. On the contrary, while
recognising the Authority’s interest in any safeguards that enhance consumer welfare, the decision
takes issue with the imposition of measures that are excessively burdensome for developers and
disproportionate to the privacy-protection objective allegedly pursued by Apple
“We aren’t saying that Apple cannot choose to limit the amount of personal data it collects form its users. We’re saying that Apple cannot require third parties to limit the amount of personal data they collect from Apple’s users.”
Tbf they probably made way more than the fine acting like that, until fraud, tax evasion etc are not seriously enforced with certain heavy punishment AND a hefty fine, for this people it will just be cost effective to be a cancer to the world
"With respect to the second constituent condition of exploitative abuse, namely the detriment
to the interests of commercial partners, the investigation clearly showed that, within the iOS
environment, the increased burden of the consent-acquisition process led, for third-party developers
alone, to a reduction of consent rates for advertising profiling following the introduction of the ATT
policy. Given that user data are a key input for personalised online advertising – since higher-quality and larger volumes of data improve the ability to identify users who may be genuinely interested in
the advertised product, service or app – the restrictions imposed by the ATT policy on the collection,
linking and use of such data are capable of harming developers whose business model relies on the
sale of advertising space, as well as advertisers and advertising intermediation platforms. This impact
is even more pronounced for smaller operators, which have access to more limited data and therefore
encounter greater difficulties in profiling users for advertising purposes following the introduction of
the ATT rules."
The EU mandated this rule, then a member state sues over it. That’s literally racketeering. The issue at hand is that you must click 2 buttons instead of 1. Italy doesn’t even try to pretend it’s not a mafia state.
It’s actually the first time to allow the app (whether Apple or 3rd party app) to get the customer data.
The second time is to share or sell the data. Apple doesn’t sell/share data so they don’t have a second prompt. The other apps do so they do have a second prompt.
Italians are saying bundle the app and the sell/share under one prompt so the users have to either give permission in an all or nothing deal.
Sometimes Italy really doesn’t know how to find new legal escamotages to steal money from others. The public debt it’s facing is a real teller… my Italian friends complain about this often
I always wondered, how would the word look like today if big tech companies had no regulations in place ? no monopoly restrictions, no fair competition , no nothing.
I imagine apple forcing people into their eco system.
Basiclally they aren’t explaining the real issue with the “twice” prompt. For both Apple and 3rd Party apps the user has to individually accept each privacy allowance.
Then if the app wants to share data or sell the data with a third party the user again must provider affirmation with a second prompt.
Apple does NOT sell or share data so there is no second prompt. The Italians want Apple to give the users an all or nothing prompt. That both 3rd party apps and the sharing and sale of user data is packaged under one agreement.
They are framing it as a monopoly and dominance to prevent 3rd party apps from making money and that Apple is giving their own apps preference….which is not true.
In this regard, it is worth noting that the Authority does not hereby in any way challenge
Apple’s potentially legitimate decision to adopt safeguards designed to strengthen – also beyond what
is strictly necessary – the protection of users’ privacy within the iOS system. On the contrary, while
recognising the Authority’s interest in any safeguards that enhance consumer welfare, the decision
takes issue with the imposition of measures that are excessively burdensome for developers and
disproportionate to the privacy-protection objective allegedly pursued by Apple
"the pop-up should be Apple's responsibility" is the issue? No.
A little bit below:
The assessment aimed at establishing the exploitative abuse first of all found that Apple holds
an absolute dominant position in the market for the supply to developers of platforms for the online
distribution of apps to users of the iOS operating system. The findings of the investigation therefore
showed that, by virtue of its dominant position, Apple was able to unilaterally impose the
aforementioned rules laid down by the ATT policy on third-party app developers, without those
developers being consulted in any way beforehand.
All this is their justification l. Their goals are clear .
Their proposal is not for apple to be better but for them to be worse. Read between the lines.
With respect to the second constituent condition of exploitative abuse, namely the detriment
to the interests of commercial partners, the investigation clearly showed that, within the iOS
environment, the increased burden of the consent-acquisition process led, for third-party developers
alone, to a reduction of consent rates for advertising profiling following the introduction of the ATT
policy. Given that user data are a key input for personalised online advertising – since higher-quality
and larger volumes of data improve the ability to identify users who may be genuinely interested in
the advertised product, service or app – the restrictions imposed by the ATT policy on the collection,
linking and use of such data are capable of harming developers whose business model relies on the
sale of advertising space, as well as advertisers and advertising intermediation platforms. This impact
is even more pronounced for smaller operators, which have access to more limited data and therefore
encounter greater difficulties in profiling users for advertising purposes following the introduction of
the ATT rules.
viii. Although the fact that the conduct may harm competition is in itself sufficient to establish the
abuse, based on well-established national and EU case law, the investigation found that the conduct
did indeed produce effects, in terms of reduced revenues for developers and advertising platforms
and increased costs for advertisers.
ix. Finally, as noted above, the lack of proportionality of the ATT policy with respect to the
achievement of the alleged objectives of enhanced privacy protection is confirmed by the body of
evidence demonstrating that those objectives could have been achieved without imposing a
mechanism requiring double consent – particularly burdensome for achievement of the alleged objectives of enhanced privacy protection is confirmed by the body of
evidence demonstrating that those objectives could have been achieved without imposing a
mechanism requiring double consent – particularly burdensome for third-party developers – by
allowing developers to obtain such consent in a single step <
The authority states that Apple requires the pop up for third parties and not for their own services, who still serve data to advertisers, which is a completely different story
It’s not about the money, they’ll keep hitting them with fines until Apple either changes the process or in the court they irder Apple to comply or Apple wins the appeal.
Hello u/ControlCAD, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Apple abused its dominant position with its App Tracking Transparency policy, which forces apps to obtain permission before collecting data to target users with personalized ads, the authority said in a statement.
They're arguing this because hitting the accept cookies button needs to be pressed twice instead of once. Lol
It’s actually the first time to allow the app (whether Apple or 3rd party app) to get the customer data.
The second time is to share or sell the data. Apple doesn’t sell/share data so they don’t have a second prompt. The other apps do so they do have a second prompt.
Italians are saying bundle the app and the sell/share under one prompt so the users have to either give permission in an all or nothing deal.
In other words they want to force users to consent to being data mined, to be able to use the app..
Bingo
Apple usually gives the data away.
Not at all.
If you bothered to read the summary:
Just another case of malicious compliance by Apple. Good thing that they got fined.
Not entirely true. I can tell most of these comments haven't read the ruling. The problem is literally in the title, abusing dominance:
The ruling also specifically says they aren't challenging the safeguards.
I linked the literal summary from court and got downvoted to hell, you can't expect the echo chamber to read before commenting, let alone reason. But you can't expect much more from a bunch of teenagers.
Apple is being fined for abusing their dominant position, not for "clicking twice".
We read and it's still pretty much it. "It's not for X, it's for Y" pretty much every detrimental government regulation is justified under some innocent sounding pretext, we're not uninformed we're just not buying it.
App developers usually aren't consulted in OS changes. That hardly seems a reason to fine Apple when there isn't settled law saying they shouldn't do what they did, or that they had an obligation to consult developers, especially when it seems to discourage pro consumer features under the theory the sellers have to have input too.
If you ask me, the EU is totally out of its mind and doesn't have any experts in place. They are just running out of money because they waisting to much money and so they grabbing it from Big Tech companies.
Apple was the first company, who give its users at least some control about tracking and privacy protection and now they claiming this? That's insane. The EU doesn't even know what they are talking about and has absolutely no clue what they are doing. It is a shame to see what idiots the EU has in its parliament.
the funniest part is that this is because of EU regulation .
Not really. It's just another case of malicious compliance by Apple.
https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/12/A561
The core of the issue is Apple's "App Tracking Transparency" (ATT) policy:
1) The regulator found that Apple’s pop-up wasn't enough to satisfy European privacy laws on its own. Because of this, app developers were forced to show you two separate pop-ups to get permission to use your data for ads.
2) The AGCM argued that Apple was being hypocritical. They found that while third-party developers were forced to show these scary-looking "Do Not Track" prompts, Apple’s own apps and services didn't have to follow the same restrictive rules. This gave Apple's own advertising business an unfair leg up over everyone else.
3) Because Apple owns the App Store, developers have no choice but to follow Apple's rules if they want to reach iPhone users. The regulator ruled that: -.Apple unilaterally imposed these rules without negotiating. -.The rules were disproportionate, meaning Apple could have protected user privacy without hurting competitors' businesses so badly.
You can believe Apple's lie that they "protect their users' privacy" all you wnat, but the reality has always been that Apple wants to protect their profits and their profits only.
Good, the consumer's interests should be more important than the developer. Apple did the right thing.
It literally says that the pop-up is crafted against the current regulation: not that it does not need to appear. Reading comprehension anyone?
From the very summary which you obviously did not read or not understand:
“We aren’t saying that Apple cannot choose to limit the amount of personal data it collects form its users. We’re saying that Apple cannot require third parties to limit the amount of personal data they collect from Apple’s users.”
Not at all. It's saying that while Apple does the same if not worse than its developers, it's holding double standards.
Sipping my tea kicking my feet watching these babies cry over not being able to infringe on people's privacy.
Tbf they probably made way more than the fine acting like that, until fraud, tax evasion etc are not seriously enforced with certain heavy punishment AND a hefty fine, for this people it will just be cost effective to be a cancer to the world
Isn't this a good thing, making it harder for apps to harvest user data?
Yes.
People will say: it isn’t bad in Apple’s case because they don’t sell it. But if it is worthless, why harvest user data?
Edit: added question mark.
It is, read the summary: https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf
"With respect to the second constituent condition of exploitative abuse, namely the detriment to the interests of commercial partners, the investigation clearly showed that, within the iOS environment, the increased burden of the consent-acquisition process led, for third-party developers alone, to a reduction of consent rates for advertising profiling following the introduction of the ATT policy. Given that user data are a key input for personalised online advertising – since higher-quality and larger volumes of data improve the ability to identify users who may be genuinely interested in the advertised product, service or app – the restrictions imposed by the ATT policy on the collection, linking and use of such data are capable of harming developers whose business model relies on the sale of advertising space, as well as advertisers and advertising intermediation platforms. This impact is even more pronounced for smaller operators, which have access to more limited data and therefore encounter greater difficulties in profiling users for advertising purposes following the introduction of the ATT rules."
W Apple
The EU mandated this rule, then a member state sues over it. That’s literally racketeering. The issue at hand is that you must click 2 buttons instead of 1. Italy doesn’t even try to pretend it’s not a mafia state.
It’s actually the first time to allow the app (whether Apple or 3rd party app) to get the customer data.
The second time is to share or sell the data. Apple doesn’t sell/share data so they don’t have a second prompt. The other apps do so they do have a second prompt.
Italians are saying bundle the app and the sell/share under one prompt so the users have to either give permission in an all or nothing deal.
Basically they getting bribed for this.
[deleted]
Fun fact: the EU makes more money fining American tech companies than taxing their own tech companies
Why is it that European companies are able to prosecute these tech companies? Hmmmmmmm/s
european companies ?
Nah, we’re on Apple’s side on this. Apple is protecting users.
Sometimes Italy really doesn’t know how to find new legal escamotages to steal money from others. The public debt it’s facing is a real teller… my Italian friends complain about this often
I always wondered, how would the word look like today if big tech companies had no regulations in place ? no monopoly restrictions, no fair competition , no nothing.
I imagine apple forcing people into their eco system.
Basiclally they aren’t explaining the real issue with the “twice” prompt. For both Apple and 3rd Party apps the user has to individually accept each privacy allowance.
Then if the app wants to share data or sell the data with a third party the user again must provider affirmation with a second prompt.
Apple does NOT sell or share data so there is no second prompt. The Italians want Apple to give the users an all or nothing prompt. That both 3rd party apps and the sharing and sale of user data is packaged under one agreement.
They are framing it as a monopoly and dominance to prevent 3rd party apps from making money and that Apple is giving their own apps preference….which is not true.
This not the issue https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf
Well I have read it and what is the issue? That it harms advertisers?
Stay in school, kids.
"the pop-up should be Apple's responsibility" is the issue? No.
A little bit below:
Boom, reading comprehension.
All this is their justification l. Their goals are clear . Their proposal is not for apple to be better but for them to be worse. Read between the lines.
Insufferable and incorrect
Can you read the linked document?
[deleted]
Did you read anything besides the title?
[deleted]
Did you read anything besides the title?
[deleted]
The authority states that Apple requires the pop up for third parties and not for their own services, who still serve data to advertisers, which is a completely different story
It’s amazing how they frame it as being a privacy misstep then say it’s harming advertisers from selling the data.
The land (home) of mafia! FU Italy!
Bizarre but completely predictable.
Meta and google can suck my ass
Oh I bet Apple is so fucked now.
0.00000000000001% hit to their bottom line is really gonna hurt and teach them such a valuable lesson.
But Apple is doing the good thing here, that protect us the users.
Italy wants your data, Apple protects it
It’s not about the money, they’ll keep hitting them with fines until Apple either changes the process or in the court they irder Apple to comply or Apple wins the appeal.