{"id":47306,"date":"2025-04-03T15:06:37","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T19:06:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=47306"},"modified":"2025-04-03T15:06:37","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T19:06:37","slug":"france-fines-apple-over-app-tracking-transparency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/04\/03\/france-fines-apple-over-app-tracking-transparency\/","title":{"rendered":"France Fines Apple Over App Tracking Transparency"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reuters<\/a> (PDF<\/a>, Slashdot<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Apple<\/a> was hit with a 150 million euro ($162.4 million) fine by French antitrust<\/a> regulators on Monday for abusing its dominant position in mobile app advertising on its devices via a privacy control tool.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

“While we are disappointed with today’s decision, the French Competition Authority has not required any specific changes to ATT,” Apple said in a statement.<\/p>\n

Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ben Lovejoy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Both advertisers and developers of free ad-funded apps complained loudly<\/a> at the impact of ATT, as it was estimated that it would cost social media companies<\/a> alone tens of billions of dollars<\/a>.<\/p>

Complaints were made in a number of countries<\/a> – some arguing that it was unfair because Apple exempts its own apps<\/a> (which are in reality subject to even tighter controls), others saying the loss of revenue forced developers to raise prices<\/a> to compensate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Jon Brodkin<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>

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.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

The agency said there is an “asymmetry” in which user consent for Apple’s own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are “required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Apple said in a statement that the ATT “prompt is consistent for all developers, including Apple[…]”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Is this actually true? It sounds like when Tim Cook told Congress<\/a> that Apple’s own apps have to follow the same guidelines as third-party apps. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Apple app display the “Allow ‘App’ to track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites?” prompt. Apple has defined tracking in such a way that it doesn’t count<\/a> if you own the app store, so why would they ever show that prompt? I have<\/em> seen Apple apps show different<\/em> prompts, and the French Competition Authority includes a screenshot of one<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Because the ATT prompt does not allow developers to specify which third-parties are receiving tracking data, developers must include a second opt-in screen that provides more details about how their data will be used. This is fairly granular — arguably too much — but Apple’s version lacks detail. If a user agrees to third-party tracking, is their consent fully informed<\/a> if they do not know with which advertisers their information is being shared, or even how many? I am not sure they do.<\/p>\n

They also seemed to disagree with how Apple defines tracking. German regulators are also interested<\/a> in what amounts to self-preferencing, even if that is not Apple’s intent. The authority has not yet published the text of the decision, which will hopefully answer many of the questions I have.<\/p>\n

One thing I am curious about is how the regulator reconciles Apple’s apparently “not problematic” attempts at improving user privacy with the callous disregard toward the same shown by ad tech companies. Trade groups representing those companies, including the French offices of the IAB<\/a> and MMA<\/a>, were among those who filed this complaint. Both trade groups are loathsome; their inability and failure to self-govern is one reason for this very privacy legislation. Yet Apple’s particular definition of “tracking”<\/a> is something only relevant to very large platform operators like itself. There is very clearly a conflict of interest in Apple trying to apply these kinds of policies to competitors, especially as Apple expands its ads business<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

It’s ostensibly “not necessary” because French and EU privacy laws are supposedly enough, and all that’s needed. And it’s unfair because now, under ATT, third-party surveillance advertisers who seek to track users across apps on iOS need to ask permission twice — first through the clear-as-a-bell “Ask App Not to Track” \/ “Allow Tracking” prompt required by Apple, and again through the byzantine but ultimately toothless permission requirements of France and the EU. ATT has had measurable effects because users understand it, and they prefer not to be tracked. EU and French privacy laws are largely ineffective because, in practice, they bury users with confusion<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

I’m not sure these last two sentences are really true, as Heer<\/a> also discusses.<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n