The confidentiality framework for monitoring Apple applications could fall into the fault of German antitrust rules
The German antitrust guard dog is investigating the Apple application confidentiality since 2022. On Thursday, publishing preliminary results of this survey, the Bundeskartellamt (FCO) said that it suspected that the iPhone manufacturer may not treat third -party application developers as required.
The antitrust guard dog said he thought that Apple’s behavior could be the self-prefees. Apple is forbidden to prefer its own services and products in Germany since April 2023When it has become subject to special abuse controls aimed at regulating Big Tech market power.
Under the law on the wider Pan-EU digital markets (DMA), Apple is also prohibited for self-reflection on iOS and a handful of other basic platform services such as the App Store.
The problem of the confidentiality of the application during the study now concerns Application monitoring transparency framework (ATTF), which allows iOS users to ask third -party applications not to follow their use for targeting ads.
The problem, for the FCO, is the difference in the way Apple deals with the monitoring authorizations requested by third parties compared to its own monitoring of iOS users.
“”[T]It is strict under ATTF only applies to third-party applicants, and not to Apple itself, “wrote the FCO in a press release. “In the preliminary point of view of Bundeskartellamt, this may be prohibited under the special abuse control provisions for large digital companies (article 19A (2) of the German competition law (GWB)) and under the provisions general abuse control of article 102 tfeu [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]. “”
“Consent dialogues for Apple’s own applications and third -party applications differ considerably,” continues. “The current design, in particular the wording, of the dialogue for Apple’s own applications, it is more likely that users agree that that of the ATTF dialogue for third -party applications.”
The FCO claims that three aspects of the framework raise competition problems.
First, while Apple defines the follow -up “in a way that only covers data processing for advertising purposes between companies”, according to the FCO, the same “strict” ATF rules “do not cover the own practice of ‘Apple to combine user data through its ecosystem – from its app store, Apple ID and connected devices – and use them for advertising purposes. »»
Secondly, he underlines how third -party applications can appear up to four consecutive consent dialogues under the ATTF, while Apple applications display a maximum of two. Pop-ups around Apple applications do not refer to “processing of Apple users on services (called first part monitoring) as such”, in the FCO assessment.
Finally, the guard dog believes that the design of monitoring consent dialogues on iOS is treated unevenly. The FCO claims that Apple’s dialogues are designed to encourage users to let it process their data, while those of third -party applications orient users to refusals.
Commenting in a press release, Andreas Mundt, the president of the FCO, said: “Apple operates a complete digital ecosystem, which, which, which, which, which, which, which, which, which […] Provides Apple significant access to user data relevant to advertising. Personalized advertising is also of great commercial importance for other companies wishing to offer free applications, some of which competition the own Apple services, in the App Store […] However, the ATTF makes much more difficult for competing applications publishers to access the relevant user data for advertising. »»
Apple spokesperson Tom Parker has sent a statement in which the company defended its operation: “The transparency of the monitoring of applications gives users more control of their privacy via a required, clear and easy to Understand on one thing: follow -up. This prompt is consistent for all developers, including Apple, and we have received strong support for this functionality of consumers, privacy defenders and data protection authorities around the world, “Apple wrote.
“We firmly believe that users should control when their data is shared and with whom, and will continue to commit in constructively with the Federal Cartel Office to ensure that users continue to do transparency and control their data”, said the company.
The technology giant now has the possibility of responding to FCO’s conclusions.
Developers have often complained that Apple has double standards compared to its own applications and services compared to third parties. Treatment by third -party company is also under DMA control: the European Commission has published A discovery of preliminary violation last summer On the way Apple uses the App Store.
It should be noted that Apple uses the designation of the FCO, seeking to reverse the capacity of the guard dog to exercise the powers of special abuse. The outcome of this appeal is awaiting a court decision of March 18, 2025.
Meanwhile, the powers apply to Apple, and the action of the FCO underlines how Apple and A handful of others Giants of designated technology Faced with significant competition interventions on several fronts in Europe.
