Apple Faces Polish Antitrust Probe Over App Tracking Transparency

[MacRumors]

Poland's antitrust regulator is investigating whether Apple is restricting competition in the mobile ads market through its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, reports Reuters.

Introduced in April 2021 with the release of iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, Apple's ATT framework requires that all apps on ‌iPhone‌ and ‌iPad‌ ask for the user's consent before tracking their activity across other apps. Apps that wish to track a user based on their device's unique advertising identifier can only do so if the user allows it when prompted.

Apple said the feature was designed to protect users and not to advantage the company. It has been unsurprisingly unpopular with advertisers and data brokers.

Poland's anti-monopoly office, UOKiK, suspects that Apple's ATT framework could be favoring the company's own ads service by limiting the ability of third-party apps to collect user data for personalized ads.

"We suspect that the ATT policy may have misled users about the level of privacy protection while simultaneously increasing Apple’s competitive advantage over independent publishers," UOKiK President Tomasz Chrostny was quoted as saying in a statement. "Such practices may constitute an abuse of dominant position."

If the regulator finds its suspicions to be warranted, Apple could face a fine of up to 10% of its annual turnover in Poland.

In an emailed statement to Reuters, Apple said:

"It is no surprise that the data tracking industry continues to oppose our efforts to give users back control over their data, and now intense pressure could force us to withdraw this feature, to the detriment of European consumers."

"We will work with the Polish competition authority to ensure Apple can continue to offer users this valuable privacy tool."

Regulators in Germany, Italy, and Romania have opened similar probes to examine whether the privacy feature violates competition rules by impeding access to essential data for advertising while reinforcing Apple's own position in the digital ad market.

In March, Apple was fined €150 million ($162 million) by France's Competition Authority over the framework's implementation.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Faces Polish Antitrust Probe Over App Tracking Transparency

 

[contacos]

how about limiting it for everyone. Isnt this what GDPR is supposed to be for

 

[wanha]

the problem with these regulations is that the left hand doesn't know, understand, or care what the right hand is doing.

On one hand, you have legal rulings about consumer privacy and consumer rights.

On the other, there's ensuring fair competition, which sees privacy as a hinderance against competition.

Such siloed legal frameworks lead to conflicting, illogical, and ultimately harmful legal initiatives like is the case here.

 

[platinumaqua]

possible outcomes:

• Court finds Apple no wrongdoing, no changes needed (status quo)
• Court finds Apple in the wrong. Apple changes their services to stop tracking, ATT remains the same (best for consumer privacy)
• Court finds Apple in the wrong, ATT gets permanently disabled (bad for consumer privacy)

 

[cicalinarrot]

I think most people don't even understand what's going on.
I want a disclaimer that clearly says "This App wants to sell your data to other companies and that's how you're paying to use it" when that's what's happening.
I want the choice to prevent it by default on all apps, without them even asking every time so that I could allow it by mistake.
I want the App Store to be very clear when that's happening. An app that sells my data is not "free". The button should say something as clear as "Free but they resell your data". Real freeware doesn't exist on phones and that's all Apple's fault (it's for money, not safety that they force everything through their store. We are safe on Macs and we have real freeware).
I want that for cookies on browsers too.
And I want who doesn't apply this to go to jail as scammers. But that's just my dream of accountability for companies that steal from customers.

 

[Smartuser]

Every Tom, Dick and Harry of a European country isn’t satisfied with the (dumb) EU’s doings, they also have to add their own ill-advised and user hostile “probes”.

 

[Happy_John]

Every Tom, Dick and Harry of a European country isn’t satisfied with the (dumb) EU’s doings, they also have to add their own ill-advised and user hostile “probes”.

Way to go with insulting a whole load of nationalities in one sentence. Did you survey the roughly half a billion people in Europe to establish this "fact"?

 

[jdavid_rp]

I want the choice to prevent it by default on all apps, without them even asking every time so that I could allow it by mistake.

Settings-Privacy-tracking

Screenshot is in Spanish but anyways.

 

[maszaikasza]

Okay, I’ve read the original article on the UOKiK website, and it’s not such a big deal. It’s mainly about the terminology Apple uses
Here is a ChatGPT translation of that part of the article (so the exact texts in iOS in english can differ)

A consequence of this definition is the different messages displayed on the screens of iPhones and iPads. In the case of third-party apps, users see a prompt asking them to consent to “tracking” their activity—an action that carries a negative connotation. In contrast, for Apple’s own content the prompt concerns “personalized advertising.” Moreover, the message related to Apple differs graphically from the one shown for external entities. For example, the text on the accept/decline buttons is different. For Apple, the buttons read: “Enable personalized ads” and “Disable personalized ads,” while in the prompt for third-party apps, the order and wording of the buttons are: “Ask app not to track” and “Allow.”

 

[bollman]

Well, good on @maszaikasza for actually reading!
The issue at hand is NOT the fact that Apple allows user to stop tracking, it is the fact that Apple apps that asks the same thing has a different dialogue with less intimidating wording.

So that if Apple is not allowed to have a different dialogue than third parties, Apple would end ATT in Europe altogether seems like such a **** move. To hurt their users and blame regulation is low, really low.

 

[Happy_John]

Okay, I’ve read the original article on the UOKiK website, and it’s not such a big deal. It’s mainly about the terminology Apple uses
Here is a ChatGPT translation of that part of the article (so the exact texts in iOS in english can differ)

A consequence of this definition is the different messages displayed on the screens of iPhones and iPads. In the case of third-party apps, users see a prompt asking them to consent to “tracking” their activity—an action that carries a negative connotation. In contrast, for Apple’s own content the prompt concerns “personalized advertising.” Moreover, the message related to Apple differs graphically from the one shown for external entities. For example, the text on the accept/decline buttons is different. For Apple, the buttons read: “Enable personalized ads” and “Disable personalized ads,” while in the prompt for third-party apps, the order and wording of the buttons are: “Ask app not to track” and “Allow.”

That sounds more reasonable - the complaint being that Apple is deliberately presenting their tracking to users in positive terms, but third party tracking in negative terms, so a double-standard. Requiring the same text in the messaging would solve the issue.

 

[LowKeyed]

Okay, I’ve read the original article on the UOKiK website, and it’s not such a big deal. It’s mainly about the terminology Apple uses
Here is a ChatGPT translation of that part of the article (so the exact texts in iOS in english can differ)

A consequence of this definition is the different messages displayed on the screens of iPhones and iPads. In the case of third-party apps, users see a prompt asking them to consent to “tracking” their activity—an action that carries a negative connotation. In contrast, for Apple’s own content the prompt concerns “personalized advertising.” Moreover, the message related to Apple differs graphically from the one shown for external entities. For example, the text on the accept/decline buttons is different. For Apple, the buttons read: “Enable personalized ads” and “Disable personalized ads,” while in the prompt for third-party apps, the order and wording of the buttons are: “Ask app not to track” and “Allow.”

Isn't part of this due to Apple understanding how they (Apple) intends to use the information and can insure that it is used in that way, because they control the whole stack. While with 3rd parties, they (Apple) has no way of knowing how that information will be used and if it is exclusively to "personalize advertising" or if it is being sold as a package or something else.

I don't recall the exact details, but wasn't there some push back from the online ad brokers or "3rd parties" about language that might limit how they used the information. I think they were upset that the language could make it sound like they might do something else with the information, but they wouldn't commit to not actually doing something else with it.

 

[gavroche]

I think most people don't even understand what's going on.
I want a disclaimer that clearly says "This App wants to sell your data to other companies and that's how you're paying to use it" when that's what's happening.
I want the choice to prevent it by default on all apps, without them even asking every time so that I could allow it by mistake.
I want the App Store to be very clear when that's happening. An app that sells my data is not "free". The button should say something as clear as "Free but they resell your data". Real freeware doesn't exist on phones and that's all Apple's fault (it's for money, not safety that they force everything through their store. We are safe on Macs and we have real freeware).
I want that for cookies on browsers too.
And I want who doesn't apply this to go to jail as scammers. But that's just my dream of accountability for companies that steal from customers.

I like everything you said.

I find it interesting that when I visit any EU (or is it just UK?) website, I get an alert asking permission for it to use cookies to track me. Is this really that different?

 

[jimothyGator]

People scoff when I point out that most regulation is not pushed to benefit consumers, but particular industries. How much more evidence do you need?

Poland’s just standing up for the little guy’s right to be tracked and targeted.

 

[Happy_John]

People scoff when I point out that most regulation is not pushed to benefit consumers, but particular industries. How much more evidence do you need?

Poland’s just standing up for the little guy’s right to be tracked and targeted.

Um, no. I don't think you've actually read the thread.

 

[rorschach]

Okay, I’ve read the original article on the UOKiK website, and it’s not such a big deal. It’s mainly about the terminology Apple uses
Here is a ChatGPT translation of that part of the article (so the exact texts in iOS in english can differ)

A consequence of this definition is the different messages displayed on the screens of iPhones and iPads. In the case of third-party apps, users see a prompt asking them to consent to “tracking” their activity—an action that carries a negative connotation. In contrast, for Apple’s own content the prompt concerns “personalized advertising.” Moreover, the message related to Apple differs graphically from the one shown for external entities. For example, the text on the accept/decline buttons is different. For Apple, the buttons read: “Enable personalized ads” and “Disable personalized ads,” while in the prompt for third-party apps, the order and wording of the buttons are: “Ask app not to track” and “Allow.”

The prompts use different terminology because they are asking about two different things.

App Tracking Transparency is about preventing an app from tracking you across other companies' apps and websites. For example, Meta tracks your activity on any page or app that embeds their widgets.

Apple does not track your activity across other apps and websites not owned by them. They "personalize" ads based on your usage of their own apps.

The latter has never required consent. Meta can freely track you across Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp without any prompt.

 

[Happy_John]

The prompts use different terminology because they are asking about two different things.

App Tracking Transparency is about preventing an app from tracking you across other companies' apps and websites. For example, Meta tracks your activity on any page or app that embeds their widgets.

Apple does not track your activity across other apps and websites not owned by them. They "personalize" ads based on your usage of their own apps.

The latter has never required consent. Meta can freely track you across Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp without any prompt.

Yes. Apple's tracking = Good. Any other company's tracking = Bad.

I think Orwell had a catchy quote that was a bit similiar.