Apple's €150 million ATT fine highlights privilege disparities in digital advertising

The French Competition Authority's decision to fine Apple €150 million over its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework implementation has brought a critical question to the forefront: Is Apple's approach to privacy creating an uneven playing field where only the privileged few can thrive?

On March 30, 2025, just eight days ago, the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence) imposed a €150 million fine on Apple for abusing its dominant position in the mobile application distribution market through its implementation of the ATT framework between April 2021 and July 2023.

According to the French regulator, while privacy protection represents a legitimate objective, Apple's implementation of ATT was neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve this goal.

"The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the iOS environment excessively complex," the Authority stated in its decision, citing an opinion from the French data protection authority (CNIL) issued in 2022.

Of particular concern to regulators was the asymmetry in how Apple applied the rules. Until the implementation of iOS 15, Apple did not request consent from users of its own applications while requiring publishers to obtain double consent for tracking on third-party sites and applications.

This double standard is at the heart of mounting criticism from industry professionals. According to Will Harmer, Chief Product Officer at Utiq, "The issue with ATT isn't consent frameworks - it's that one of the biggest platforms in the world is taking the data but stopping others from accessing it. That's not privacy. That's privilege."

Harmer further emphasized this point in comments made to Seb Joseph at Digiday: "Whilst we welcome the French competition authority's ruling, it merely confirms what we've known all along: Apple weaponized privacy concerns to gain competitive advantage. There's simply no justification for the double standard Apple created — strict consent requirements for third parties whilst using preferential language for their own tracking."

Small publishers bearing the heaviest burden

The Competition Authority found that ATT has been particularly harmful to smaller application publishers that lack sufficient proprietary data to develop alternative targeting mechanisms.

Ad4Screen, a mobile marketing agency, testified that the loss of business for smaller players contrasts sharply with the situation of "players with their own data 'ecosystem' [that] can leverage their position to strengthen their offering without using IDFA or cookies." The agency specifically mentioned Meta and Google as examples of companies that can track users' journeys after viewing advertisements without relying on the identifiers restricted by Apple's framework.

This asymmetric impact demonstrates how privacy mechanisms implemented by dominant platforms can inadvertently—or perhaps intentionally—solidify existing power dynamics in the digital ecosystem, leaving smaller publishers with fewer options for monetization.

A turning point for regulatory approach to privacy

The decision marks a significant evolution in how regulatory bodies view the relationship between privacy protection and competition. The French Competition Authority consulted the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) twice during its investigation, receiving formal opinions that helped shape its competitive analysis.

According to these opinions, bringing the ATT framework into compliance with competition law would not compromise the effectiveness of Apple's privacy protection system. The CNIL stated that "making publishers systematically collect user consent twice for the same purpose constitutes an unnecessary and artificial complexity."

This collaborative approach between competition and data protection authorities signals a more nuanced regulatory stance on privacy implementations. The Competition Authority concluded that this case demonstrates that "competition law and the right to privacy are not mutually exclusive, but both aim to guarantee a fair and transparent market that safeguards consumer interests and well-being."

Industry reactions and broader implications

The decision has been met with approval from advertising industry representatives. Nicolas Rieul, Co-Founder at Actionable AI, who appears to have been involved in the case, posted on LinkedIn that "after four years of fighting, Apple has lost — and we have won!" He described the decision as "landmark" and suggested it "opens the door for the entire ecosystem to claim damages for the losses they have suffered."

Will Harmer of Utiq argued for a more equitable approach to privacy, stating, "At Utiq, we believe true privacy is rooted in transparency, consent, and fairness for everyone - not selective enforcement that reshapes the market."

The ruling may have implications beyond Apple. As Harmer noted to Digiday, "True privacy requires both fair competition and stronger data protections."

This development comes amid increasing regulatory scrutiny of major technology platforms worldwide. Similar investigations are reportedly underway in Italy and Germany, potentially setting the stage for a broader reassessment of how privacy features are implemented by dominant platforms.

What's next for privacy and competition

The decision raises fundamental questions about how privacy and competition can coexist in the digital ecosystem. As Apple faces regulatory challenges across multiple jurisdictions, the company will need to reconsider its approach to privacy implementations.

"It's important that Apple is regulated properly. If we want a fair, open internet, we can't have different rules depending on who you are," Harmer told Utiq followers on LinkedIn.

The question now is no longer if Apple's approach needs reform, but how quickly the industry and regulators will catch up. With AdAttributionKit (formerly SKAdNetwork) now covering 77% of all referral-based conversions to the App Store according to recent data, the stakes for getting the balance right are higher than ever.

Just four days ago, on April 10, 2025, Apple announced that Apple Search Ads will register with AdAttributionKit, potentially addressing one aspect of the uneven playing field by allowing developers to evaluate Apple Search Ads alongside third-party advertising networks in a consolidated attribution framework.

However, critics note that this move comes suspiciously close to the French regulator's decision, suggesting regulatory pressure rather than a proactive commitment to fairness may be driving these changes.

Timeline

• April 26, 2021: Apple launches the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework with iOS 14.5
• October 23, 2020: Several French advertising industry associations file a complaint with the Competition Authority against Apple's planned ATT framework
• March 17, 2021: The Competition Authority rejects request for interim measures but continues investigation
• 2022: The French data protection authority (CNIL) issues an opinion on the ATT framework at the Competition Authority's request
• July 25, 2023: End of the period considered in the Competition Authority's investigation
• March 30, 2025: The Competition Authority announces a €150 million fine against Apple for abuse of dominant position
• April 10, 2025: Apple announces Apple Search Ads will register with AdAttributionKit