German Publishers Push Regulators To Fine Apple Over App Tracking Transparency

German publishers and advertising groups are urging regulators to fine Apple over its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) system, arguing it unfairly restricts access to advertising data while allowing Apple to remain the central gatekeeper -- without subjecting its own apps to the same restrictions. If Germany's antitrust authority does rule against Apple, the company could face fines of up to 10% of its global revenue. 9to5Mac reports: One of the countries investigating whether ATT is anticompetitive is Germany. Last year, in an attempt to appease the country's antitrust watchdog, the company proposed several changes to the framework's rules. From Reuters' original coverage of Apple's changes proposals: "Apple had agreed to introduce neutral consent prompts for both its own services and third-party apps, and to largely align the wording, content and visual design of these messages, said Andreas Mundt, head of Germany's Bundeskartellamt. The company also proposed simplifying the consent process so developers can obtain user permission for advertising-related data processing in a way that complies with data protection law." [...] At the time, German regulators launched a consultation with industry publications to determine whether the proposals addressed their concerns. As it turns out, the answer was a hard no.

As Reuters reported today: "Apple's proposed changes to its app tracking rules do not resolve antitrust issues in the mobile advertising market, associations representing German publishers and advertisers said on Tuesday as they urged the country's antitrust authority to slap a fine on the U.S. tech giant. [...] 'The proposed commitments would not change the negative effects of the App Tracking Transparency Framework,' Bernd Nauen, chief executive of the German Advertising Federation, said in a joint letter signed by the trade bodies. 'Apple would remain the data gatekeeper and would continue to decide who gets access to advertising-relevant data and how companies can communicate with their end customers,' he said."

Solving the wrong problem.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It sounds like the actual problem here is that Apple isn't being sufficiently constrained; but of course the adtech scum are looking for something else entirely.

Re:Solving the wrong problem.

[shilly]

Exactly. What sane consumer wants these companies to be able to track them like this? It's gross behaviour, and it's even worse that the German regulator is considering acting against the interests of consumers at the behest of these companies.

Re:

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Yes, but this is not the data protection or consumer's rights authority investigating but the antitrust watchdog. Completely different department. In which way publishers and/or Apple are allowed to track users is a different matter. Here it is about Apple tracking them while keeping the data and their monetarization for itself.

Re:

[shilly]

The entire purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers' interests. The reason we have antitrust regulation is that anticompetitive behaviours harm consumer interests, eg price fixing keeping prices artificially high.

Screw both sides

[ddtmm]

The only positive thing that could come of this is the if proceeds from a fine could go to some good public use.

Oh no not again

[mccalli]

Been following this one out of morbid curiosity for a few months. The reason the Apple ones don't show the same prompts as the third-party ones is they don't do the tracking as those third-parties. If they do, they ask for the same permission. Apple don't want to prompt for permission to do something they're not doing (at least in that app).

Personally I hope all the ad tracking of both sides just dies in a fire, but it does seem completely reasonable not to be forced to prompt to get permission for something you're not actually doing or going to do.

Re:

[thegarbz]

The reason the Apple ones don't show the same prompts as the third-party ones is they don't do the tracking as those third-parties. If they do, they ask for the same permission.

Evidence? I'm curious if you have any for this. You may be right, but I suspect you have no way of knowing this until this court case proceeds through a complex discovery process. Right now it's just coming across as wishful thinking.

Re:

[mccalli]

Yes - Apple have testified that they do not link data from the applications together. The 3rd party ones do link the data together. Hence the law suit.
br I'm neither the defence nor the prosecution so I don't have internal Apple evidence. The case has gone through before though, hence my title of "oh no not again". The solution had been agreed by the competition regulators, this is the 3rd parties opening it all up again.

Don't let Apple fool you

[allo]

The problem is not that Apple is not allowed to use Tracking Transparency, but the point is that all apps need to be treated the same, i.e., they would need to apply the same transparency to their own apps, that are currently exempted.

Re:

[djb]

No their apps are not exempt, they are treated in the same way as every app that does not track you like this, or sell you data. If you don’t engage in objectionable behaviour, then you don’t have to ask permission.