Apple Hit With Supersized Fine in Italy Over an iPhone Privacy Feature

[MacRumors]

Italy's Competition Authority (AGCM) has imposed a €98.6 million ($116 million) fine on Apple over its App Tracking Transparency feature.

Since the release of iOS 14.5 in April 2021, Apple has required apps to ask for permission before tracking a user's activity across other apps and websites for personalized advertising, as part of a feature named App Tracking Transparency. If a user selects the "Ask App Not to Track" option, the app is unable to access the device's advertising identifier.

In a press release and executive summary today, the AGCM said the App Tracking Transparency rules are "disproportionate," and "harmful" to app developers and advertisers. Ultimately, it found that Apple abused its dominant position in the EU market.

The regulator does not take issue with Apple implementing policies that are designed to strengthen privacy and security for users, but it said the App Tracking Transparency feature is "excessively burdensome for developers."

Specifically, iPhone and iPad users in the EU are presented with both App Tracking Transparency and GDPR-related permission prompts in apps, and the AGCM found this "double consent" requirement to be harmful to app developers and advertisers.

"Apple could have achieved the same level of privacy protection for its users through means less restrictive of competition," the AGCM said. "This would have prevented the unilateral imposition of additional burdens on third-party developers, thereby avoiding the above-mentioned double consent requests for advertising purposes."

The regulator also found that the App Tracking Transparency rules appear capable of generating financial benefits for Apple, even though the feature applies to its own apps as well. The only reason that Apple apps do not show an App Tracking Transparency prompt is because Apple does not track user activity across other apps and websites.

In a statement shared with several media outlets, Apple said it will appeal the decision, and it touted the privacy benefits of App Tracking Transparency.

Earlier this year, Apple warned that it may be forced to stop offering App Tracking Transparency in the EU due to regulatory pressures in countries such as Italy, France, Germany, and Poland, and from the overarching European Commission.

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 Hit With Supersized Fine in Italy Over an iPhone Privacy Feature

 

[idmean]

but it said the App Tracking Transparency feature is "excessively burdensome for developers."

What does this have to do with anti-competitive behavior?

 

[avkills]

Anything that is harmful to advertisers but good for users is a bonus in my book.

 

[Entilzha]

“You let customers be more private, that’s anti-competitive!”

…these regulators might as well put on clown shoes and makeup to complete the image.

 

[surferfb]

Absolutely insane. The European countries have lost their minds. To quote Gruber when France did this:

It’s clear that only one of these two things — Apple’s ATT or French/EU privacy regulations — was actually effective at reducing tracking: ATT. No one claimed that French or EU privacy laws resulted in Meta losing a fortune because they had to adjust their kleptomaniacal thievery of users’ privacy. But by all accounts, including Meta’s own, ATT cost Meta billions. And yes, ATT hurt small businesses too — small businesses that were built upon surreptitious tracking that users had neither awareness of nor control over. It’s like a consortium of sketchy pawn shops complaining to the authorities after a popular retailer successfully cracked down on an organized shoplifting/pickpocketing ring, and the authorities then fining the retailer for the damage to the pawnbrokers’ business fencing stolen goods — and for exposing the police as ineffective.

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.

 

[contacos]

They don't even know what they are doing. You either want to protect the data of your people or advertisers. Can't have it both ways

 

[ItsASpider]

“You let customers be more private, that’s anti-competitive!”

…these regulators might as well put on clown shoes and makeup to complete the image.

The regulators aren't happy with the fact that Apple is making users decline tracking twice in third party apps, who cannot solely rely on ATT to be compliant with the law and thus have to ask again after the OS already did.

If anything, it is the current setup that is very anti-consumer. They have to tell an app twice to not track them rather than once. Worse; because of its wording Apple's own apps don't have to do this. And yes, that one click can also be a competitive advantage.

This is the same complaint France had. Neither of these countries is asking Apple to remove it, they're asking to simplify the user experience and for Apple to treat all apps the same instead of giving themselves an advantage.

 

[bob24]

As a resident of the EU I am really getting tired of those regulators who want to control everything and treat consumers like kids who don’t know what’s good for them.

This is a feature I am really happy with and I am freely deciding to use Apple products (I can stop using them if I’m not happy with them).

Can you please just leave me alone and not force the company I have chosen as my favourite option to modify the features I like ?!

 

[Kidseeghost]

This is anti consumer. If its harmful to advertisers is good for consumers. Also most Apps are junk anyway filled with junk ads. No sympathy for the developers who developed junk.

 

[surferfb]

The regulators aren't happy with the fact that Apple is making users decline tracking twice in third party apps, who cannot solely rely on ATT to be compliant with the law and thus have to ask again after the OS already did.

Well, maybe the EU should update the law so that it does what it intends to. Because from where I'm sitting, Apple's asking users not to track in plain language seems to work, whereas EU regulations clearly don't.

If anything, it is the current setup that is very anti-consumer. They have to tell an app twice to not track them rather than once. Worse; because of its wording Apple's own apps don't have to do this. And yes, that one click can also be a competitive advantage.

You meant "because Apple doesn't track users across third-party apps and websites don't have to do this." It's like a liquor store complaining it's unfair that the grocery store next door doesn't have to ask customers for ID without noting that the grocery store doesn't sell alcohol.

 

[whitby]

Why? I have no idea why the EU have to be so invasive. The fact that I may be asked twice is completely and utterly irrelevant. I do not want my use of my phone to be tracked, end. I do not want what apps I use, how long I use it, when I use it, where I use it or what provider I use etc. to be provided to any third party unless I specifically ask it to do so and I want the controls to do that. The EU have no rights whatsoever to take that away from me. This is bureaucracy gone mad.

 

[canadianreader]

If a user selects the "Ask App Not to Track" option, the app is unable to access the device's advertising identifier.

This is a great privacy feature unless you're an advertiser.

 

[Kidseeghost]

Specifically, iPhone and iPad users in the EU are presented with both App Tracking Transparency and GDPR-related permission prompts in apps, and the AGCM found this "double consent" requirement to be harmful to app developers and advertisers.

Prompts in apps are buried in settings. Settings are designed in a way to confuse users and are not easy to navigate. So users don’t usually go through every app and turn off all the tracking. Somebody here lobbied to get rid of the easy solution so they can track everything, which means Apples solution works well. Apple offers an easy solution for users to easily stop getting spied by all these companies and it looks like the majority of users decided to turn off the spyware.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

On this one, Italy appears to be bipolar. It is sad because, unlike in the US, they have real privacy laws. But Apple puts additional privacy controls into the users' control and the EU now is fighting for the rights of the trackers, advertisers, and privacy violators. If a developer wants to track a user outside of their own app capabilities and a user denies it I am sure that the developer could choose to limit the functionality of the app.

 

[Kidseeghost]

I would rather pay for a good App than having ads popping left and right with scam ads and all advertisers track me. But if I pay there is no guarantee that I will not get tracked. So Apples solution is a step in the right direction.

 

[budselectjr]

Anything that is harmful to advertisers but good for users is a bonus in my book.

I never get people who hate advertising. The same people would complain if Macrumors went to subscription only. They just want everything for free.

 

[justanotherdave]

Watch the pretzel logic that will appear in this thread.

If you think Apple should be punished for not following their own rules regarding ATT, then by extension you can’t be in favor of the DMA which has carefully worded conditions that exclude EU companies from having to abide by the DMA.

Logically they are the same: favoring your own.

 

[justanotherdave]

I never get people who hate advertising. The same people would complain if Macrumors went to subscription only.

So…you don’t get 99% of the population?

People don’t just hate ads—they hate the privacy invading data collection that makes them possible.

 

[Zest28]

EU can't develop **** so they try to make money from fining US tech companies.

The EU makes more money from fining US tech companies than taxes EU tech companies pay.

 

[bluecoast]

Lucky Italians get to be tracked and profiled in their apps - a choice cruelly denied to the rest of us by Apple for the last few years.

(ok, you can turn this off but cmon)

 

[rorschach]

Next they'll say that requiring consent for push notifications is unfair to companies that want to spam users with ads.

 

[dwsolberg]

So frustrating. The road to hell is paved with horrible regulators.

 

[Kidseeghost]

I never get people who hate advertising. The same people would complain if Macrumors went to subscription only.

The ads on MacRumors aren't as annoying as those in apps, and no I would not complain. I would rather pay than see ads for a product I like. The newest invention. Showing ads to paying subscribers and hardware you already bought like refrigerators. Of course people are getting more and more annoyed by it. Companies are making products worse so they can chase infinite growth (Enshttification).

I ignore ads anyway, so I don't need personalized ones. I also try to avoid products that have annoyed me because they were featured in an ad. For MacRumors to be successful with a paywall, however, it needs more exclusive content like Bloomberg.

 

[Wieslawo]

As stated, it's not about privacy, but about the complexity of the solution and the fact that Apple doesn't have to implement it. I understand Apple's position, given its store and system, but I wonder if it could be done at the system level?

 

[canyonblue737]

How embarrassing for the Italian goverment for trying to punish a company for asking their users if they want their personal data tracked before allowing 3rd parties to do so automatically. Normally these government overreaches are in the name of consumers (even if overly harmful to users such as some EU and UK choices) but this time it's the government being anti-consumer and pro-business. Odd.