For no reason? How about high inflation? How about the increased music licensing costs? How about its larger and growing music library? Also, this was the first increase in several years which means the average annual increase would come out to significantly less than the 23% you mentioned.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
France Fines Apple €8 Million for Targeted App Store Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For no reason? How about high inflation? How about the increased music licensing costs? How about its larger and growing music library? Also, this was the first increase in several years which means the average annual increase would come out to significantly less than the 23% you mentioned.
Doesn't matter. I'm sure any price increase can be justified one way or the other. The thing is, if the public is readily willing to accept a double-digit percent increase for no other reason than inflation, then I'm sure a 0.1% increase to cover the fines would go unnoticed.
So streaming services will get into the same legal issues as well in France? They do recommend contents to their subscribers based on their past views. I think Steam probably does the same for gamers using their services. Will Steam get into trouble in France as well?
IMHO, this is another money grab, but hey, it's just me.
This is just the cost of doing business for Apple. That fine is not high enough. I wish Apple would backtrack on ads.
Not likely because they use your
Direct actions such as liked games in your wish list or liked shows to form their algorithm, they don’t show you adds.
Steam doesn’t have adds and the same with Netflix. Apples problem is they have adds in the AppStore.
It’s not a money grab if they broke the law. Law firms aren’t allowed to take a percentage of settlements or fees. Apple should stop breaking the law.
Not asking permission is shady. Apple just have to do better.
This is a good example Google implemented after a 150million dollar fine
Yes, how do you otherwise loose a lawsuit without evidence?
Nope, as far as I can remember and in this German video, apple do not ask permission for advertisement when you set up iOS 16.
So the proof France have( it’s a French government body not EU) is starting an iPhone for the first time.
Perhaps because stronger privacy laws didn’t exist in 2008? 25 January 2012: The proposal for the GDPR was released.
14 April 2016: Adoption by the European Parliament.
25 May 2018: Its provisions became directly applicable in all member states, two years after the regulations enter into force.
Apple hit $1 trillion market cap during intraday trading on Aug. 2, 2018
No, it’s completely and 100% about privacy. If apple asked for permission in a clear manner they won’t have a problem to win the case. And it’s France not EU who fined them
Google have gotten billions in fines and have the record currently for the biggest one by EU.
Google loses appeal over record EU anti-trust Android fine - BBC News
An EU court has largely upheld a £3.5bn fine against Google over its Android platform.
www.bbc.com
But they have been fined for the same thing as apple.
Google gives Europe a ‘reject all’ button for tracking cookies after fines from watchdogs
Europe gets the option to “reject all” of Google’s cookies
www.theverge.com
But they don’t shrug them off as fines can become massive along side being blocked from sale all together.
Yes 5 steps are too much. It should be zero steps. Just how when you open up an app for the first time they ask you on the spot if you want to allow tracking or not. Or would you say users are to lazy to go in the app and change the settings instead of the developers following the rules?
Or apple can follow the law. Laws didn’t sneak up on them in the night with a surprise attack.
Or te EU could make it so that American tech companies won’t want to do business in the EU and the EU will wind up by being a tech desert trailing the world.
Why? EU don’t have an obligation to appease foreign companies. Especially when it’s France doing it and not EU in this case.
American companies believe they are special when they aren’t. We have our standards, take it or leave it.
Stop abusing users right to privacy it’s easy to do. Ask for consent or go somewhere else they can abuse user’s privacy unhindered.
Apple should have no problem following privacy laws if they value it.
Imo, Facebook is the benchmark for what privacy abuse looks like. I think it’s real easy to go overboard such that the very thing that makes apple stuff work so well, will be dismantled.
Abuse is abuse irrespective if it’s a mm or a million miles. Just as robbing a dollar or a million dollar is still a crime irrespective how petty you think it can be.
Hence apple gets a small 8million fine and Facebook is getting over a billion in collected fines for privacy violations.
Meta's New Year kicks off with $410M+ in fresh EU privacy fines | TechCrunch
Meta is starting the new year with more privacy fines for its business in Europe following enforcement of complaints over the legal basis it claims to run behavioral ads.
techcrunch.com
making for a total of €747 million in (publicly disclosed) EU data protection and privacy fines handed down to the adtech giant in 2022 + 400milliom~ this year to a total of 1.1 billion.
Apple would just need to put the “do you want personalized adds? Yes/no”
They have no reason to fall on the finish line. Especially when apples privacy initiatives are the reason EU are being more hostile to privacy breaches.
The EU Has a Plan to Fix Internet Privacy: Be More Like Apple
Lawmakers want all websites to use a similar “Ask App Not to Track” function, but Apple's system might not be as clear-cut as once believed.
Abuse is abuse irrespective if it’s a mm or a million miles. Just as robbing a dollar or a million dollar is still a crime irrespective how petty you think it can be.
Hence apple gets a small 8million fine and Facebook is getting over a billion in collected fines for privacy violations.
Meta's New Year kicks off with $410M+ in fresh EU privacy fines | TechCrunch
Meta is starting the new year with more privacy fines for its business in Europe following enforcement of complaints over the legal basis it claims to run behavioral ads.
making for a total of €747 million in (publicly disclosed) EU data protection and privacy fines handed down to the adtech giant in 2022 + 400milliom~ this year to a total of 1.1 billion.
Apple would just need to put the “do you want personalized adds? Yes/no”
They have no reason to fall on the finish line. Especially when apples privacy initiatives are the reason EU are being more hostile to privacy breaches.
The EU Has a Plan to Fix Internet Privacy: Be More Like Apple
Lawmakers want all websites to use a similar “Ask App Not to Track” function, but Apple's system might not be as clear-cut as once believed.www.wired.co.uk
Apple DOES ASK if you want personalized ads!
It’s right there during new out of box setup just prior to entering your iCloud account for restore or etc.
It’s literary RIGHT THERE!!
Where do they do that? You have a picture of it? At any point in the video I posted you are free to show it.
If you men this then no it doesn’t ask for permission.
And if they do the. Then This whole story is a nothing burger and apple will win the appeal as they obviously ask permission as you claim.
Apple can still be fined if they showed adds without asking permission in iOS 14 and 15 as long as it was done when it was illegal.
If you get caught that you did something illegal in the past you can be punished for it as long as it was a crime when it happened.
Identifiant publicitaire : sanction de 8 millions d’euros à l’encontre de APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL
Le contexte À la suite d’une plainte portant sur les traitements de personnalisation des annonces publicitaires diffusées dans l’App Store, la CNIL a effectué plusieurs contrôles en 2021 et 2022 afin de vérifier le respect de la réglementation applicable.
Where do they do that? You have a picture of it? At any point in the video I posted you are free to show it.
View attachment 2138666
If you men this then no it doesn’t ask for permission.
And if they do the. Then This whole story is a nothing burger and apple will win the appeal as they obviously ask permission as you claim.
Apple can still be fined if they showed adds without asking permission in iOS 14 and 15 as long as it was done when it was illegal.
If you get caught that you did something illegal in the past you can be punished for it as long as it was a crime when it happened.
Identifiant publicitaire : sanction de 8 millions d’euros à l’encontre de APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL
Le contexte À la suite d’une plainte portant sur les traitements de personnalisation des annonces publicitaires diffusées dans l’App Store, la CNIL a effectué plusieurs contrôles en 2021 et 2022 afin de vérifier le respect de la réglementation applicable.www.cnil.fr
Personalized ads is prompted to the user during setup in iOS since iOS 14.
This is a screen shot on macOS (I’m not about to wipe my iPhone 13 mini to prove a point and I have no other phone so even if I didn’t screenshots are not save during stupid process).
Here is an article specifically mentioning it. https://adscholars.com/blog/apple-will-now-ask-permission-before-showing-its-own-targeted-ads/amp/
Here is Apple’s own articles how to disable it.
Control how Apple delivers advertising to you on iPhone
On iPhone, control how Apple delivers advertising in the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks.
Control personalized ads on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks - Apple Support
Learn how to limit the personalization of ads delivered by Apple on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac, and how to turn off location-based ads delivered by Apple on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac.
This all should be sufficient enough to appeal and win. Just cause those running the EU fail to do their research doesn’t mean it’s ok to fill the current narrative that Apple is bad cause their not the mainstream standard or made too much $$.
Attachments
Hang on. Let me get this right. You seem to know a lot about the various services.
Apple’s ‘ads’ are just apps that are available in the App Store. The App Store shows its users apps that they may be interested in based on their history in the App Store.
Netflix shows its users shows that they may be interested in based on their view history.
I’m sure Steam and Spotify does the same thing.
Why is Apple abusing French law while Netflix and others, according to yourself, OK?
Edit: The definition of money grab does not only restrict to private individuals. Government agencies too. $8m Euros can fund a small agency for about a year don’t you think?
Yet again it’s not EU, it’s a French organization filing it in a French court. EU isn’t involved.Personalized ads is prompted to the user during setup in iOS since iOS 14.
This is a screen shot on macOS (I’m not about to wipe my iPhone 13 mini to prove a point and I have no other phone so even if I didn’t screenshots are not save during stupid process).
Here is an article specifically mentioning it. https://adscholars.com/blog/apple-will-now-ask-permission-before-showing-its-own-targeted-ads/amp/
Here is Apple’s own articles how to disable it.
Control how Apple delivers advertising to you on iPhone
On iPhone, control how Apple delivers advertising in the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks.support.apple.com
Control personalized ads on the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks - Apple Support
Learn how to limit the personalization of ads delivered by Apple on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac, and how to turn off location-based ads delivered by Apple on your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac.
This all should be sufficient enough to appeal and win. Just cause those running the EU fail to do their research doesn’t mean it’s ok to fill the current narrative that Apple is bad cause their not the mainstream standard or made too much $$.
And your link says iOS 15. So it still ends up to depend when the law was broken.
If apple broke the law with iOS 14 without asking explicit permission they can be fined for it. If it was fixed later on then this would just be an old case that took forever to go to court.
You have to personalize ads to some extent. If you know a user is a child and likes gaming, you only show ads that are suitable for them. If personalization doesn't exist you could end up serving gambling and dating ads to children.
The only way around this is to have ads by category. So in the gaming section of a store you only have ads that are for gaming. Etc.
It's tricky though. So many ads are created daily and the ad creators sometimes deliberately alter meta data to fool platforms. YouTube is full of scam ads and Google just gives them a green light because they assume everything is OK until there are enough complaints.
Adds are somthing people pay for to be displayed. App developers pay apple to show adds. Steam and Netflix doesn’t have adds for anyone to pay for.
Netflix shows their shows. You can’t purchase anything.
Steam shows you a wishlist you must interact with.
Steam works a bit differently than other stores in that they don't organize the store around paid ads. They don’t sell marketing space at all. Instead, the store is personalized for each player based on what they are playing. Any curated promotional visibility is the result of proven customer interest.
And Spotify have an add supported service you pay fore. Music shown to you can’t be purchased in Spotify premium.
Advertisement shows you something you can pay for based on what companies are willing to pay for.
You are conflating advertising and algorithmic content.
Advertisement will depend on what companies pay even if the data stays the same. Algorithmic content will always show the same content as long as the input is the same.
I would still not say it’s a money grab if the law was broken and the organization is doing its job of verifying compliance.
mon·ey grab • n. inf. an undignified or unprincipled acquisition of a large sum of money with little effort
Plus Here the loosing side always pays court fees automatically, no exceptions.
Last edited:
Or they don’t show adds at all like steam and stay away from the advertising business of the AppStore.
And just show applications based on user preferences in their settings. Apple makes it come complicated than it needs to be.
Steam works a bit differently than other stores in that we don't organize our store around paid ads. In fact, we don't sell marketing space at all. Instead, the store is personalized for each player based on what they are playing. Any curated promotional visibility is the result of proven customer interest.
Features And Tools, Marketing (Steamworks Documentation)
So, if I understand what you wrote, you basically agrees that what Apple is doing for their App Store is the same as what Netflix and maybe others are doing when they recommend, i.e. they "harvest" user's data when they uses their services and then make use of those "harvested" data to then present something they thing may of interest to their users.
So you are saying that, because Apple gets paid by others for doing that, they have broken French law.
Is that correct?
I don't think I'm discussing the definition advertisement. I'm discussing what has Apple done that has broken French law and I'm asking why is Netflix and others not fined, since as your post suggest, they are doing the exact same thing. Is it because Apple is richer compared to the rest?
What has Spotify (with they ad-supported service) have to do with French law? Are you saying that if Apple argue that the App Store is also ad-supported, they will be OK?
You said I'm conflating ad with algo content, when I have not said anything about ad at all. I merely pointed out that the 'ads' in the App Store are just recommendations for Apps already in the App Store.
So you are concluding that if Apple did not get paid for the Apps recommendation, the French law will be OK for Apple "harvesting" (btw, this term is vague in this context, as Apple has to store what their users bought as it is required for how they operate, i.e. when restoring iOS devices) their users' usage behaviour?
I'm confused.
You seem to be any person that is well verse in the EU and French law. Care to point out where is it that forbids business from profiting from their service by using algorithmic contents?
Of course, businesses have to be fined when they broke the law. My take is that law should be consistently applied, do you agree?
So if the enforcement of the law is not consistent, does it make it unprincipled?
I was specifically responding to your comment that Apple raised the price of Apple Music for "no reason" when there were likely a few reasons.
As far as absorbing or passing along price increases, how that works out can depend on the amount (fine) and how price sensitive the market(s) may be. Very large companies like Apple may be more immune to fines but they still can have an impact on the bottom line.
No I would say Apple isn’t doing the same thing. The important difference is the selling of adds using any data from a user must have consent.
If apple would recommend something and not show adds they would be completely in the clear like Netflix or steam.
The difference is the selling of adds.
If Netflix sold add space they would be in the exact same problem without consent from the user to collect and use that data for advertising.
In the same way apple is asking permission in iOS 16 when you use the AppStore they are in compliance.
It’s not that you’re mentioning it, but your question is related to it.
When apple shows algo content for free with zero access to any developer they are complaining in the clear.
But the second they are adds they must have consent.
If apple did this then yes they would be 100% in the clear.
Nowhere, it only states they need consent when using it. The problem isn’t making a profit. It’s the lack of concent related to advertising.
It’s stated in GDPR and are the same in all of EU, but nations can have their own interpretation in relation
GDPR is from 2018~
Cookies, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive - GDPR.eu
Cookies can give businesses insight into their users’ online activity. Unforunately they are subject to both the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive, making compliance difficult.
gdpr.eu
Directive 2009/136/EC
Directive 2009/136/EC amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and ...
Well it’s consistent, hence why I’m saying it’s not a money grab.
And I agree laws should always be applied fairly on everyone.
Just with GDPR about 1.500~ companies have been fined. I can’t find for ePrivacy.
GDPR Enforcement Tracker - list of GDPR fines
List and overview of fines and penalties under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, DSGVO)
www.enforcementtracker.com
Regarding non personalized ads it COUPD be worse and let advertisers have children dressed up in S&M sex play gear like Bellaggio did of recent. That in itself is messed up!!
To be honest ads being personalized at least to demographics has been long overdue. Yet it’s doesn’t need to data mine without consent.
A simple 1x questionnaire when visiting a site:
Make/female (etc)
Age range: teenager (14-18), young adult (19-26) adult (26-36), etc. anything lower should NOT even be asked as only toys and soap and toothpaste and cereal is all they ever cared about beyond games and sports. No generation in the last 60yrs has really differed from that in the youth preteen or earlier.
The only difference since 2010 is youth care more about games than fashion or physical classic toys. Somehow Nerf still does well cause well boys will be buys and narc things because that’s fun lol. Then again some granny on a tube channel loves hitting her adult grandson back too lol. Imagine that. A grandmothers last thoughts before passing into the next dimension is bopping some adult straight in the forehead with a nerf gun lol laugh ring hysterically ☠️ lol
I don't think you understand the point I'm making, or your intention is just to bash Apple every chance you get? The 'ads' are Apps recommendation. It is not something outside of the App Store. So are you saying that if Netflix gets paid by a show's producer to recommend their shows to Netflix's users, it will be illegal in France? Why? Which law stipulate this is illegal such that it will result in a fine? Same for Steam.
AFAIK, the French law in question states that Apple did not get consent before using information they have to collect for their services. It was stated in this thread that Apple did ask for it during iOS setup and this can be changed in iOS. And Apple is appealing. If they know they have no chance, no point appealing right?
So far what I read are just personal interpretations based on one's personal feeling.
I'm asking what is different here and so far I don't think this is answered.
Btw, I don't think it was stated in the article that Apple is fined because of 'paid ads.' They are fined because they did not get consent, but from what I understand of the iOS setup process, they seem to do ask for the consent. And Netflix/Spotify does the same thing but France is not giving them any fines. Consistent?
See above.
How is this consistent when just about any online service is doing the same nowadays?
It doesn’t matter if it’s of content on or off the platform. The lawsuit is about advertisement based identifications that apple created without consent and send to their services for non critical functions.
IF Netflix was payed by show runner x to show their content to their users they would very likely be fined. Because this isn’t algorithmic content it’s a product placement based on user preference. It all hangs on the legal interpretation of advertisement and use of user data for such purposes without prior consent
Same with steam. Only reason today Netflix/ steam isn’t affected is the fact they don’t sell advertisement and use . Now they could theoretically do it secretly but then this would have to be discovered first.
. You have the ability to read the court case.
Advertising ID: APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL fined 8 million euros
Background information Following a complaint concerning the ad personalization in the App Store, the CNIL carried out several investigations in 2021 and 2022 in order to verify compliance with the applicable regulations. The CNIL services found that under the old version 14.6 of the operating...
The law in question is article 82 of the data protection act
This is also taken from the ruling where they describe the idenfied purpose
c
It is completely up to you to read the ruling,
And reading the ruling it seems apple did break the law by using identifiers for what they aren’t supposed to.
It’s Kim of bad the defense apple went with first was that it didn’t fall within the scope of the law and not that they didn’t break it.
The difference is targeted advertisement and the use of personal identification tokens that are send without permission or need. And algorithmic presentation of content. One uses your private information target you while the other doesn’t and is completely localized on your device.
And the the use of tokens to identify you
Well the problem as stated in the ruling is that apple used DSID and DPID to show adds relates to your target profile.
That is connected with you iAdId.
The fact these identifiers are created before consent is given and later transmitted to apple servers for advertising purposes and not for necessary communication between your phone and apple servers to establish communication.
Netflix and apple doesn’t do that to my knowledge.
Now I can also be completely wrong and one current court case could do exactly that depending how it goes in the EU Supreme Court.
Data ruling by Europe's top court could force privacy reboot
The referral to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) relates to a Lithuanian case concerning national anti-corruption legislation.
techcrunch.com
But as the law is worded and the reasoning in this case I do not believe steam or Netflix and any similar services break the law as written.
Dude, they aren’t wizards with infinite resources and staff, they can’t do magic.
This case investigation started in 2021 and it was ruled in 2022.
Apples is still in the appealing process.
They have a list of services that have been ruled or is in court currently.
They just have 74 cases between 2018-2022 since the law was implemented. For all we know steam and Netflix might be the next case. Before apple there where 40-50 cases
So far it seems to have been consistent so I can’t say why you think it isn’t.