Apple Hit With $162 Million Fine Over App Tracking Transparency

[bcortens]

So Apple is punished for making anti-tracking that is easy to understand, a good experience, and actually works, compared to the EU’s which is needlessly confusing, a terrible user experience, and results in people just clicking yes to make the pop-up go away?

Sounds about right.

The problem is that you can't see what will be tracked before you choose to allow tracking. It is a bad user experience and is against the law because the user isn't making an informed choice.

The way cookie consent popups work is terrible. The way that they often bury the decline all tracking behind a second screen is horrible and should be prohibited. However, the consent popups do tell the user how their data is being used before they click ok. This information is missing from Apple's implementation.

I have other complaints about the cookie consent nonsense but that's out of scope for this topic.

 

[surferfb]

The problem is that you can't see what will be tracked before you choose to allow tracking. It is a bad user experience and is against the law because the user isn't making an informed choice.

The way cookie consent popups work is terrible. The way that they often bury the decline all tracking behind a second screen is horrible and should be prohibited. However, the consent popups do tell the user how their data is being used before they click ok. This information is missing from Apple's implementation.

I have other complaints about the cookie consent nonsense but that's out of scope for this topic.

It blows my mind people are defending this ruling. The EU’s method doesn’t work and results in mass confusion, Apple’s works and doesn’t.

But I guess all regulations are inherently good and results don’t matter. So let’s punish the ones who came up with an innovative solution that is working better than the one created by a committee of bureaucrats that doesn’t.

The means justify the ends, I guess.

 

[bcortens]

It blows my mind people are defending this ruling. The EU’s method doesn’t work and results in mass confusion, Apple’s works and doesn’t.

But I guess all regulations are inherently good and results don’t matter. So let’s punish the ones who came up with a solution that is working.

There is a difference between thinking the EUs law is perfect and thinking that Apple still has to obey the law.

I think the EU cookie consent law brought about a sea change in how I am able to control my data on websites. Is the implementation frustrating? Yes. Are most people just clicking yes and getting just as badly tracked as before, also yes. But the choice is new and welcome. Prior to this law you were still being tracked you just didn't have a choice to opt out.

The law should be improved and it needs to mandate that it has to be much easier to decline tracking, it needs to be possible to decline once and never be prompted again.

 

[surferfb]

There is a difference between thinking the EUs law is perfect and thinking that Apple still has to obey the law.

I think the EU cookie consent law brought about a sea change in how I am able to control my data on websites. Is the implementation frustrating? Yes. Are most people just clicking yes and getting just as badly tracked as before, also yes. But the choice is new and welcome. Prior to this law you were still being tracked you just didn't have a choice to opt out.

The law should be improved and it needs to mandate that it has to be much easier to decline tracking, it needs to be possible to decline once and never be prompted again.

I thought the EU was all about “the spirit of the law” not the letter of the law. ATT is much closer to the spirit of the law than anything mandated by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

[bcortens]

I thought the EU was all about “the spirit of the law” not the letter of the law. ATT is much closer to the spirit of the law than anything mandated by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

The law requires that people be informed about how their data will be used prior to authorizing use of the data, how does ATT comply with the spirit of informed consent?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Because the comment was buddy
They are coming after the most popular
That’s why I said are you sure they are in France

The comment was… buddy. I suppose it was!
I’m not sure they are the FRENCH REGULATORS are indicating they are. Why would they say that?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There is another issue that no one here has mentioned yet, while we are all focusing on people who choose the do not track option the ruling also takes issue with the allow tracking option.
GDPR requires more disclosure of how the data is used than is presented by this popup meaning that if a user does allow tracking the app has to present yet another informational screen explaining how the data is going to be used. This is one of the aspects of Apple's implementation of ATT that increases friction and that is an issue.

Edit: To be clear I think do not track should be the default and that you shouldn't have to do anything to opt out of tracking. I am not defending the trackers and I think the cookie consent popups that we got are a bad solution tot he problem. However, cookie consent is better than what we had before, which was no way to opt out.

Huh! I’ve never clicked “allow”, so I didn’t even know about that! Thanks for the info.

Update: I’m not certain of what you’re saying here. Are you saying that, once you click allow, that Apple shows an additional dialog OR that Apple doesn’t show an additional dialog when they choose allow? If it’s the second, I wouldn’t be surprised if, by clicking allow, you are allowing them to track whatever is listed on the App Store page.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The law should be improved and it needs to mandate that it has to be much easier to decline tracking, it needs to be possible to decline once and never be prompted again.

The same organizations that don’t like Apple doing it will not allow the government they fund to put anything approaching that in place. GDPR is a mess and ATT is “one tap” (which is what GDPR should have been) because ATT wasn’t implemented by a government that has to tread lightly, even when dealing with ad networks that have shown themselves willing and able to misuse citizen data. To think that the law will be improved such that it’s effectively ATT but without ATT being in place, I fear, is a pipe dream.

 

[Stuwil]

The comment was… buddy. I suppose it was!
I’m not sure they are the FRENCH REGULATORS are indicating they are. Why would they say that?

According to what I’ve read is android is the most popular in France

 

[surferfb]

The law requires that people be informed about how their data will be used prior to authorizing use of the data, how does ATT comply with the spirit of informed consent?

That information is listed on each app's page on the App Store, which presumably the user saw before downloading the app.

And I'd argue the spirit of the law is clearly to make it easy for consumers to not have their data not be tracked. Just because Apple is better at doing that than the regulators should be a reason to celebrate them, not a reason to fine them.

To quote Gruber:

App Tracking Transparency actually accomplished, in practice, via user-focused plain-language consent, what the EU’s privacy laws were intended to do but do not. This fine boils down to France declaring that Apple shouldn’t have actually done what the EU was pretending to do. They’re acting at the behest of the very developers and advertising companies who were (and still are trying) to conduct cross-app tracking that App Tracking Transparency successfully gave users some control over.

 

[laptech]

I thought the EU was all about “the spirit of the law” not the letter of the law. ATT is much closer to the spirit of the law than anything mandated by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

Apple have proven time and time again they do not follow the 'spirit of the law' only the letter of the law. The EU is only doing to Apple what Apple has been doing to the EU.

 

[I7guy]

Apple have proven time and time again they do not follow the 'spirit of the law' only the letter of the law. The EU is only doing to Apple what Apple has been doing to the EU.

And what is that, crafting nebulous legislation? Expecting Apple to give everything away?

 

[surferfb]

Apple have proven time and time again they do not follow the 'spirit of the law' only the letter of the law. The EU is only doing to Apple what Apple has been doing to the EU.

And the EU has already shown they don't apply the letter of the law to Apple. iPadOS is a gatekeeper despite not meeting the metrics laid out in the law to be a gatekeeper. Vestager admitted it in her statement declaring iPadOS a gatekeeper (emphasis mine).

Our market investigation showed that despite not meeting the thresholds, iPadOS constitutes an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers.

That's banana republic stuff. We don't like you, so the rule applies anyway, but we won't apply it to our EU company Spotify. (Is Spotify not an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers?)

And here we have an instance where Apple's implementation does a better job of meeting the ideals of the regulation than the regulation itself does, but no, that cannot be allowed. Everyone should have to use the confusing system we established, not a user-friendly one Apple did. Bureaucracy at its finest.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple have proven time and time again they do not follow the 'spirit of the law' only the letter of the law. The EU is only doing to Apple what Apple has been doing to the EU.

Remind me again how the consumer benefits from this?

 

[maxoakland]

So on one hand, the EU wants Meta to stop serving targeted ads in Facebook.

In the other hand, Apple is being fined for impacting French advertisers and preventing them from doing precisely that.

Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure why this is confusing. The issue is that they’re not applying those same rules to themselves and are using their power to force other companies to do things

What you’re suggesting is letting companies abuse monopoly power as long as the outcome is good. But that’s a bad idea

 

[Unregistered 4U]

According to what I’ve read is android is the most popular in France

Right, so we’re agreed the nonsense EU regulators are spewing regarding Apple’s “dominance” is, indeed, nonsense.

 

[Stuwil]

Right, so we’re agreed the nonsense EU regulators are spewing regarding Apple’s “dominance” is, indeed, nonsense.

There is a difference between the EU &
What regulators in France say because you do know that they are an individual country?

it depends on the context regarding the word dominance

 

[surferfb]

I’m not sure why this is confusing. The issue is that they’re not applying those same rules to themselves and are using their power to force other companies to do things

Again, the ATT rules absolutely apply to Apple. However, Apple does not track across apps, so that is why users don't get an "ask not to track" popup with Apple's apps.

If Apple presented that dialogue box, they would be insinuating to their users that Apple is tracking their activity across multiple apps and websites to sell ads, which Apple does not do.

 

[surferfb]

There is a difference between the EU &
What regulators in France say because you do know that they are an individual country?

it depends on the context regarding the word dominance

iOS has a ~30% market share in the EU. Which is why EU regulators had to invent a law to go after them, because trying to enforce existing antitrust laws against a company with 30% marketshare would be very difficult.

 

[Abazigal]

I’m not sure why this is confusing. The issue is that they’re not applying those same rules to themselves and are using their power to force other companies to do things

What you’re suggesting is letting companies abuse monopoly power as long as the outcome is good. But that’s a bad idea

Apple does not track users across third-party apps, websites, and services. Apple does not send user data to third parties. Apple does not buy or use data from third parties. Apple doesn't create personalized profiles as users move across apps and websites from various companies.

There is literally no rule to apply to themselves. Apple is being fined for giving users the choice to be tracked, and for holding themselves to a higher standard in this regard.

Basically, regulators in Europe have opted to prop up homegrown competitors, which apparently rely on significant amounts of third-party data to track users, than protect user privacy.

That’s really all there is to it.

 

[sputnikv]

An entire industry (basically 99.995% of silicon valley) running off shady, dishonest and hidden tactics is not something to envy.

funny how you assume i was talking about the united states as if china, south korea, taiwan, japan, israel and singapore each don't completely obliterate the entire european continent in tech

 

[amartinez1660]

Whatever the fine, supposing it’s legit (I personally wouldn’t want ATT to disappear) how many EURs each affected users will receive from these fines?
What’s that you say? A total of zero? Go figure, color me shocked… the clients are supposedly the affected ones yet not the ones to receive compensation.