Apple Threatens to Withdraw App Tracking Transparency in Europe ⇥ dpa-international.com

Andrej Sokolow, Deutsche Presse Agentur:

Apple could switch off a function that prevents users’ apps from tracking their behaviour across various services and websites for advertising purposes in Germany and other European countries.

The iPhone manufacturer on Wednesday complained that it has experienced constant headwinds from the tracking industry.

“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 in a statement.

It is a little rich for Apple to be claiming victimhood in the face of “intense lobbying efforts” by advertising companies when it is the seventh highest spender on lobbying in the European Union. Admittedly, it spends about one-third as much as Meta in Germany, but that is not because Apple cannot afford to spend more. Apple’s argument is weak.

In any case, this is another case where Apple believes it should have a quasi-regulatory role. As I wrote last month:

[…] Apple seems to believe it is its responsibility to implement technical controls to fulfill its definition of privacy and, if that impacts competition and compatibility, too bad. E.U. regulators seem to believe it has policy protections for user privacy, and that users should get to decide how their private data is shared.

I believe there are people within Apple who care deeply about privacy. However, when Apple also gets to define privacy and tracking, it is no coincidence it found an explanation allowing it to use platform activity and in-app purchases for ad targeting. This is hardly as sensitive as the tracking performed by Google and Meta, and Apple does not use third-party data for targeting.

But why would it? Apple owns the platform and, if it wanted, could exploit far more user information without it being considered “tracking” since it is all first-party data. That it does not is a positive reflection of self-policing and, ideally, something it will not change. But it could.

What E.U. authorities are concerned about is this self-serving definition of privacy and the self-policing that results, conflicting with the role of European regulators and privacy laws, and its effects on competition. I think those are reasonable grounds for questioning the validity of App Tracking Transparency. Furthermore, the consequences emanating from violations of privacy law are documented; Meta was penalized €1.2 billion as a result of GDPR violations. Potential violations of App Store policy, on the other hand, are handled differently. If Meta has, as a former employee alleges, circumvented App Tracking Transparency, would the penalties be handled by similar regulatory bodies, or would it — like Uber before — be dealt with privately and rather quietly?

The consequences of previous decisions have been frustrating. They result in poorer on-device privacy controls for users in part because Apple is a self-interested party. It would be able to make its case more convincingly if it walked away from the advertising business altogether.

Sokolow:

Apple argues that it has proposed various solutions to the competition authorities, but has not yet been able to dispel their concerns.

The company wants to continue to offer ATT to European users. However, it argued that the competition authorities have proposed complex solutions that would effectively undermine the function from Apple’s point of view.

Specificity would be nice. It would be better if these kinds of conversations could be had in public instead of in vague statements provided on background to select publications.