Germany Considering Apple's App Tracking Transparency Changes

[MacRumors]

Germany is evaluating Apple's proposed changes to address antitrust concerns over App Tracking Transparency (ATT), reports Reuters. Apple plans to tweak the text and formatting of the ATT consent prompt, while aiming to preserve the main privacy benefits of the feature.

Apple will add neutral consent prompts for its own services and for third-party apps, aligning the wording, content, and visual design of the messages. Apple also plans to simplify the consent process to make it easier for developers to get user permission for ad-related data processing.

Germany is asking for feedback from publishers, media groups, and regulators to determine if Apple's changes will address complaints about the limited amount of user data available to app publishers.

Earlier this year, Apple said that it might have to remove ATT from the EU. "Intense lobbying efforts in Germany, Italy and other countries in Europe may force us to withdraw this feature to the detriment of European consumers," Apple said.

Germany first launched a probe into App Tracking Transparency in 2022 after complaints from advertisers, and in February 2025, the German Federal Cartel Office preliminarily decided that Apple abused its market power, giving itself preferential treatment. According to German regulators, Apple's restrictions made it "far more difficult" for developers to access user data relevant for advertising.

Introduced in 2021, App Tracking Transparency lets iPhone and iPad users decide whether to allow apps to track their activity across other apps and websites for advertising purposes. Users can choose to allow apps to ask for permission, or turn off tracking entirely.

ATT prevents apps from accessing the advertising identifier of Apple devices without express consumer permission, so apps can't track what users do and use that data for ad targeting. ATT has been unpopular with advertisers and data brokers, but Apple has pledged to work to convince Germany and other EU countries to allow it to continue to offer ATT to consumers.

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: Germany Considering Apple's App Tracking Transparency Changes

 

[Lyrics23]

As long as Apple treats its own apps and third-party apps equally, they're okay.

Their claim that they might remove App Tracking Transparency only holds true if they intend to favour their own apps over third parties; which is anti-competitive and the whole reason they're in this mess in the first place.

Much better for them if they just stop favouring their own apps in any way that's potentially anti-competitive. It shouldn't be that hard to just treat their own apps exactly as third party apps are treated.

Better privacy for consumers that way, if Apple apps no longer receive an automatic opt-out of tracking limitations.

 

[robd003]

Does anyone else find it insane that the EU which invented GDPR privacy protections is trying to force Apple to make it easier for advertising firms to track people?

You'd think the EU would be all in favor for limiting ad tracking. More and more it just seems like a desperate attempt to extract wealth from successful American companies because Europe cannot innovate.

 

[mazz0]

It’s be nice if the article told us how the warnings are currently worded for Apple’s own apps and for third party’s apps. That’s pretty much the crux of the question of who’s in the right.

 

[surferfb]

As long as Apple treats its own apps and third-party apps equally, they're okay.

Their claim that they might remove App Tracking Transparency only holds true if they intend to favour their own apps over third parties; which is anti-competitive and the whole reason they're in this mess in the first place.

Incorrect. ATT applies to Apple and third party apps equally. Just because the regulator doesn’t understand that doesn’t change the fact.

Much better for them if they just stop favouring their own apps in any way that's potentially anti-competitive. It shouldn't be that hard to just treat their own apps exactly as third party apps are treated.

Apple isn’t favoring its own apps. They are treated exactly the same way third party apps are treated.

Better privacy for consumers that way, if Apple apps no longer receive an automatic opt-out of tracking limitations.

ATT doesn’t apply to Apple because Apple doesn’t do third party tracking across non-Apple apps and websites.

 

[gleepskip]

EU busybody bureaucrats. How many stories are we up to today on MR about the EU asserting their obnoxious control over everything Apple do?

 

[HMI]

Does anyone else find it insane that the EU which invented GDPR privacy protections is trying to force Apple to make it easier for advertising firms to track people?

You'd think the EU would be all in favor for limiting ad tracking. More and more it just seems like a desperate attempt to extract wealth from successful American companies because Europe cannot innovate.

No crazier than Google and Facebook working together to change California law so that privacy violations are capped at something like $1500 or $2500 max, so they can just break the law and pay effectively a small, non-consequential, business fee.

 

[macbookj0e]

“Federal Cartel Office”

They don’t even try to hide they’re legal gangsters?

 

[klasma]

EU busybody bureaucrats. How many stories are we up to today on MR about the EU asserting their obnoxious control over everything Apple do?

This is the German federal authorities investigating competition law complaints, which they are required to by law.

More information by the federal agency here: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/12_02_2025_ATTF.html

Note that this is a process started in mid 2022, so it’s not like they are rushing anything: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2022/14_06_2022_Apple.html

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They want Apple to NOT tell people that what Meta, Google and other ad networks Germans may have never logged in to, want to do, is to track them across apps and across websites. There are people in this thread that will say informing people that they’re being tracked is wrong.

But, that’s where we are.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It’s be nice if the article told us how the warnings are currently worded for Apple’s own apps and for third party’s apps. That’s pretty much the crux of the question of who’s in the right.

The crux of the question is whether or not the person evaluating the question feels that it’s wrong for Apple to let consumers know that third party companies they aren’t doing business with are tracking them across apps and websites. If it’s wrong for Apple to let people know they’re being tracked by services they never log into, then that determines how a person will feel about this question.

Those companies COULD ask consumers to log into their ad networks. On Apple devices, creating a new email address and password to log in would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. Then, it’d be first party tracking of the type that Apple’s doing. Unfortunately, for all the companies tracking consumers, users have to create hundreds of logins and that would ALSO let them know how much they’re being tracked.

 

[Lyrics23]

Incorrect. ATT applies to Apple and third party apps equally. Just because the regulator doesn’t understand that doesn’t change the fact.


Apple isn’t favoring its own apps. They are treated exactly the same way third party apps are treated.


ATT doesn’t apply to Apple because Apple doesn’t do third party tracking across non-Apple apps and websites.

You’re blatantly incorrect here.

The article itself points out that Apple is willing to make changes in the wording in order for that aspect to become equal; in other words, it currently isn’t equal.

Also, tracking is tracking. The whole point is that Apple’s tracking doesn’t get some magical exception just because Apple is the one doing it.

If Apple provides a way to limit the tracking third parties do, users must equally be able to limit Apple’s own tracking.

 

[klasma]

Incorrect. ATT applies to Apple and third party apps equally. Just because the regulator doesn’t understand that doesn’t change the fact.


Apple isn’t favoring its own apps. They are treated exactly the same way third party apps are treated.


ATT doesn’t apply to Apple because Apple doesn’t do third party tracking across non-Apple apps and websites.

From https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/12_02_2025_ATTF.html:

“Apple has not offered any changes to the way it measures advertising success (attribution), intending to continue its practice of carrying out such measures without obtaining prior consent from users. The Bundeskartellamt is critical of this approach, but will assess in the market test whether third parties are still at a relevant competitive disadvantage, given that the Bundeskartellamt’s preliminary assessment has shown that Apple’s use of data is only limited when it comes to attribution measures. It is currently unclear to what extent Apple is required to obtain consent under data protection law for its attribution measures; this question will also be examined as part of the market test, particularly with the involvement of the relevant data protection authorities.”

This sounds like a measured approach, and note that they are already in the fourth year of this investigation.

 

[DocMultimedia]

When you want stuff you have to attack the one with more. The EU (and many other places) are attacking the one who was smart and made money.

Endless grabs for money will happen until chaos wins. Thermodynamics of economics. Hopefully Apple can stabilize the chaos.

 

[surferfb]

You’re blatantly incorrect here.

The article itself points out that Apple is willing to make changes in the wording in order for that aspect to become equal; in other words, it currently isn’t equal.

Apple is changing wording to please a regulator who doesn’t understand the difference between first party tracking and third party tracking. That doesn’t make me incorrect, it makes the regulator.

Also, tracking is tracking. The whole point is that Apple’s tracking doesn’t get some magical exception just because Apple is the one doing it.

The issue isn’t tracking. The regulator has no issue with tracking. In fact, the regulator wants to make it easier for third parties to track. The regulator doesn’t like that Apple’s apps don’t get the ATT warning, because the regulator doesn’t understand first party tracking is different than thirdnparry tracking. Meta is free to track users across all of their apps, no ATT prevention applies. When they try to track you across other developers apps and websites (which Apple does not do) then ATT applies.

This isn’t rock science.

If Apple provides a way to limit the tracking third parties do, users must equally be able to limit Apple’s own tracking.

They do. There is an on off switch, which is more than Meta gives in its own apps.

 

[BaldiMac]

You’re blatantly incorrect here.

The article itself points out that Apple is willing to make changes in the wording in order for that aspect to become equal; in other words, it currently isn’t equal.

Also, tracking is tracking. The whole point is that Apple’s tracking doesn’t get some magical exception just because Apple is the one doing it.

If Apple provides a way to limit the tracking third parties do, users must equally be able to limit Apple’s own tracking.

None of this is true. Like in other jurisdictions, they are trying to equate first-party tracking (which any app can do including Apple’s apps) with third party tracking which requires consent (which Apple’s apps don’t do).

This is all a lobbying ploy by advertisers to bypass the tremendously successful ATT.

 

[Lyrics23]

Apple is changing wording to please a regulator who doesn’t understand the difference between first party tracking and third party tracking. That doesn’t make me incorrect, it makes the regulator.


The issue isn’t tracking. The regulator has no issue with tracking. In fact, the regulator wants to make it easier for third parties to track. The regulator doesn’t like that Apple’s apps don’t get the ATT warning, because the regulator doesn’t understand first party tracking is different than thirdnparry tracking. Meta is free to track users across all of their apps, no ATT prevention applies. When they try to track you across other developers apps and websites (which Apple does not do) then ATT applies.

This isn’t rock science.

They do. There is an on off switch, which is more than Meta gives in its own apps.

The regulator understands just fine, I assure you. From an anti-competitive point of view, there is no difference between Apple’s first party tracking and third-party tracking.

They must be treated equally, and thus Apple must provide a way for users to prevent Apple’s tracking in the same manner Apple provides for blocking third-party tracking.

The regulator doesn’t want to make it easier to track; that is quite literally irrelevant to this case. Tracking and privacy in general are covered by other regulations such as GDPR.

This is about, and only about, Apple’s anti-competitive behaviour in blatantly favouring its own tracking while disadvantaging third-party tracking.

Apple can remedy this very easily in two ways; either remove App Tracking Transparency completely so everyone is tracking equally, which we obviously don’t want, or simply apply App Tracking Transparency to its own apps, too. Which we obviously do want, for our own enhanced privacy, but which Apple obviously doesn’t want because of all that lovely unique data they gather from all of us.

As you say, it’s not rocket science.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Wait - are there advertiser's rights we need to somehow protect? WTF?

 

[BaldiMac]

The regulator understands just fine, I assure you. From an anti-competitive point of view, there is no difference between Apple’s first party tracking and third-party tracking.

They must be treated equally, and thus Apple must provide a way for users to prevent Apple’s tracking in the same manner Apple provides for blocking third-party tracking.

The regulator doesn’t want to make it easier to track; that is quite literally irrelevant to this case. Tracking and privacy in general are covered by other regulations such as GDPR.

This is about, and only about, Apple’s anti-competitive behaviour in blatantly favouring its own tracking while disadvantaging third-party tracking.

Apple can remedy this very easily in two ways; either remove App Tracking Transparency completely so everyone is tracking equally, which we obviously don’t want, or simply apply App Tracking Transparency to its own apps, too. Which we obviously do want, for our own enhanced privacy, but which Apple obviously doesn’t want because of all that lovely unique data they gather from all of us.

As you say, it’s not rocket science.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between first party and third party tracking in this context. Every app is free to use first party tracking. Apple’s apps aren’t special.

 

[Lyrics23]

None of this is true. Like in other jurisdictions, they are trying to equate first-party tracking (which any app can do including Apple’s apps) with third party tracking which requires consent (which Apple’s apps don’t do).

This is all a lobbying ploy by advertisers to bypass the tremendously successful ATT.

This is incorrect. No consent is required for either type of tracking so long as GDPR regulations are also followed.

The issue here isn’t who is doing the tracking at all, first or third party. The issue is that the first party is preventing third-parties from access to tracking while the first party retains free-reign to do all the tracking it likes. That’s anti-competitive, and that’s the issue at hand.

Apple can stop being anti-competitive by treating their own tracking exactly like they treat third party tracking and give users the same options to limit Apple’s tracking in the same way. Or they remove ATT entirely, and allow all tracking. I’d prefer the former, but so long as they treat their own apps equally, they’re okay as far as the regulations are concerned.

 

[incoherent_1]

As a developer who does not make money off user/consumer data, I was blown away (in a good way) when I first implemented App Tracking Transparency.

It is so drop-dead easy to implement for devs and yet at the same time implements relatively robust protections for user data. I really wish Apple would roll out advertising campaigns to educate users (not just on ATT but all the steps they take to protect user data). Apple is far far from perfect, but any lay person can compare them against what Google does and it's laughable on its face how freewheeling Google is with user data.

And in what kind of Black Mirror episode are we living where the EU wants to weaken user projections???

 

[surferfb]

This is incorrect. No consent is required for either type of tracking so long as GDPR regulations are also followed.

The issue here isn’t who is doing the tracking at all, first or third party. The issue is that the first party is preventing third-parties from access to tracking while the first party retains free-reign to do all the tracking it likes. That’s anti-competitive, and that’s the issue at hand.

No, the issue, which you don’t seem to understand is that Apple prevents ALL apps (including Apple’s) from tracking across third party apps and websites without consent. So Meta can track you across Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp etc. without consent. But if Meta wants to track you across websites or apps not owned by Meta (what we call third party tracking) they have to get permission. Apple doesn’t ask for permission to track across apps and websites not owned by Apple because IT DOESN’T DO THAT.

Meta DOES track across websites and apps it doesn’t own, hence the pop-up. The regulator is mad Apple doesn’t also give a popup for its tracking, but Meta wouldn’t get the pop up if it wasn’t paying other apps and websites for your data. Again, Apple doesn’t do this.

Apple can stop being anti-competitive by treating their own tracking exactly like they treat third party tracking and give users the same options to limit Apple’s tracking in the same way. Or they remove ATT entirely, and allow all tracking. I’d prefer the former, but so long as they treat their own apps equally, they’re okay as far as the regulations are concerned.

Again, Apple is not behaving anticompetovely. Their apps are treated the exact same way as everyone else’s. In fact, Apple goes users more choice than third party apps do. Apple not only lets users turn off Apple’s tracking in first party apps, but presents the option to users among setup. Meta does not allow you to turn of Meta’s tracking in Meta’s apps.

You seem to be getting confused about first party vs third party. Third party tracking doesn’t mean “tracking not done by Apple.” It means “tracking not done by the App’s owner.”

 

[Lyrics23]

As a developer who does not make money off user/consumer data, I was blown away (in a good way) when I first implemented App Tracking Transparency.

It is so drop-dead easy to implement for devs and yet at the same time implements relatively robust protections for user data. I really wish Apple would roll out advertising campaigns to educate users (not just on ATT but all the steps they take to protect user data). Apple is far far from perfect, but any lay person can compare them against what Google does and it's laughable on its face how freewheeling Google is with user data.

And in what kind of Black Mirror episode are we living where the EU wants to weaken user projections???

The EU wants Apple to treat itself equally to third-parties. That’s literally it. This is an EU regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, not a regulation about privacy. GDPR is the EU regulation for that.

Apple can choose to weaken user protections by removing ATT if it likes, and that would comply with regulations. Or it could apply ATT to itself and its own tracking, and also comply that way.

That would be a strengthening of user protections, but it will be up to Apple, not the EU, how Apple chooses to comply.

Personally I hope they choose the way that enhances our privacy, not the one that reduces it. But it will be up to Apple in the end.

 

[Neodym]

„[…] complaints about the limited amount of user data available to app publishers.[…]

Since when do companies (or individuals) have any ‚right‘ to gather user data? Do I have to keep my blinds open in the future or even let Marketing guys enter my home to snoop around - just because I bought a fridge or a piece of furniture from their company?

Perhaps it’s just me, but this sounds ridiculous! My user data is NONE of your business!

 

[Lyrics23]

No, the issue, which you don’t seem to understand is that Apple prevents ALL apps (including Apple’s) from tracking across third party apps and websites. So Meta can track you across Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp etc. without consent. But if Meta wants to track you across websites or apps not owned by Meta (I.e., third party tracking) they have to get permission. Apple doesn’t ask for permission to track across apps and websites not owned by Apple because IT DOESN’T DO THAT.

Meta DOES track across websites and apps it doesn’t own, hence the pop-up. The regulator is mad Apple doesn’t also give a popup for its tracking, but Meta wouldn’t get the pop up if it wasn’t paying other apps and websites for your data. Again, Apple doesn’t do this.

Again, Apple is not behaving anticompetovely. Their apps are treated the exact same way as everyone else’s. In fact, Apple goes users more choice than third party apps do. Apple not only lets users turn off Apple’s tracking in first party apps, but presents the option to users among setup. Meta does not allow you to turn of Meta’s tracking in Meta’s apps.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. But so long as Apple has unlimited access to track users across their use of their devices and provides advertising to those users, then even if the mechanics are slightly different, (and yes, much more egregious in use by those like Meta) it also apples to Apple.

It doesn’t matter that Apple’s apps aren’t sharing the data with Facebook or something, they’re still tracking you across multiple Apple apps.