ON
← Back to feed
Federal Cartel Office: Apple has to adjust tracking protection
Germany🏛️ PoliticsCenter6 days ago

Federal Cartel Office: Apple has to adjust tracking protection

The German Federal Cartel Office has ordered Apple to significantly revise its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF), which allows users to opt out of data collection by apps. The decision follows a competition law investigation initiated in 2022, where Apple was accused of giving itself an unfair advantage by limiting tracking by third-party apps. Under the new rules, Apple must redesign its consent prompts to avoid discouraging users from opting out of tracking by third parties. This includes removing elements like the 'Warning Hand' symbol and the term 'tracking.' Apple must also align its internal tracking practices with those of third-party trackers. The move comes amid concerns over user privacy and data misuse, with reports showing location data being sold to brokers. Industry groups representing advertisers and publishers opposed the changes, arguing they were harming their ability to target ads effectively.

Germany’s Federal Cartel Office has ordered Apple to significantly revise its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF), a privacy feature introduced in 2021 that allows iPhone users to control whether apps can collect their data. The decision comes after a five-year review process initiated in 2022 and marks a major shift in how Apple presents tracking permissions to users. Under the new rules, Apple must redesign its consent prompts to avoid discouraging users from rejecting third-party tracking. This includes removing warning symbols such as the “Warning Hand” icon and avoiding language perceived as alarming, such as the term “tracking.” The revised framework will require Apple to present requests for user permission in a more neutral manner, ensuring that users are not led toward declining tracking options. Additionally, Apple must align the prompts for its own advertising tracking with those used for third-party tracking, preventing the company from gaining an unfair advantage over competitors. The Federal Cartel Office emphasized that while Apple has the right to implement stricter privacy protections than legally required, it must ensure these measures do not unfairly disadvantage other businesses. The ATTF was initially hailed as a landmark in mobile privacy protection. It gave iPhone users a straightforward and transparent way to allow or block tracking during app installation and in device settings. This system effectively disables the unique identifier assigned to each iPhone, known as the Advertising Identifier (IDFA). This ID is typically used by ad-supported apps to create detailed profiles of users based on location data, device information, and inferred interests. These profiles are then shared with numerous advertising firms to enable personalized ads. Research conducted by netzpolitik.org and the Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation revealed that some of this data is being used beyond just targeted advertising. For example, billions of highly accurate location records from German phones have ended up with data brokers who sell them for profit. The ability to opt out of tracking through ATTF has been a crucial defense against such practices. The legal challenge against Apple's tracking protections was launched by several German digital, media, and advertising associations, which felt disadvantaged by the introduction of ATTF. Organizations including the Central Association of the German Advertising Industry, the Federation of the Digital Economy, the Media Association of Independent Press, and the Federation of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers sought to prevent Apple from implementing its own privacy measures that could restrict the business activities of other companies. The impact of ATTF has been substantial. According to reports, Meta, a member of the Federation of the Digital Economy, estimated losses of $10 billion in revenue within the first year following the implementation of Apple’s tracking restrictions. Apple argued that its privacy features were justified because they allowed the company to differentiate itself in the market through superior data protection standards. The Federal Cartel Office agreed with Apple on this point, stating that even dominant market players are generally allowed to introduce privacy measures that go beyond legal requirements. However, Apple must ensure that these measures do not unfairly harm competition. Since Apple itself collects and uses data for advertising purposes, the redesigned prompts must treat its own tracking requests similarly to those of third parties. As a result, users will likely face longer and more complex consent prompts when granting or denying tracking permissions. While the changes aim to balance privacy rights with fair competition, they also raise concerns about the potential for increased user confusion and the possibility of more intrusive data collection practices by third parties. The revised framework will take effect soon, and Apple is expected to roll out updates to its operating system to comply with the new regulations.

Go to the primary sources (2)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

2 reports

netzpolitik.org logonetzpolitik.orgIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 756 days ago
Federal Cartel Office: Apple has to adjust tracking protection

The German Federal Cartel Office has ordered Apple to significantly revise its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF), which allows users to opt out of data collection by apps. The decision follows a competition law investigation initiated in 2022, where Apple was accused of giving itself an unfair advantage by limiting tracking by third-party apps. Under the new rules, Apple must redesign its consent prompts to avoid discouraging users from opting out of tracking by third parties. This includes removing elements like the 'Warning Hand' symbol and the term 'tracking.' Apple must also align its internal tracking practices with those of third-party trackers. The move comes amid concerns over user privacy and data misuse, with reports showing location data being sold to brokers. Industry groups representing advertisers and publishers opposed the changes, arguing they were harming their ability to target ads effectively.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the regulatory decision by the Bundeskartellamt as a balanced legal ruling based on competition law, without overtly criticizing or praising Apple’s actions. It outlines both the implications for user privacy and the industry’s opposition without taking a clear ideological side.

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the primary source document from the Bundeskartellamt regarding Apple’s changes to the App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF). It mentions the requirement for Apple to adjust its tracking practices, remove alarming symbols like 'Tracking', and align user consent r

Why objectivity (75): The tone remains generally neutral, but there is a slight emphasis on the positive implications of the decision for user privacy and data protection. The article frames Apple’s actions as necessary improvements rather than purely regulatory compliance, which introduces a subtle advocacy tone.

n-tv logon-tvIndependentCenterFactual 60Objective 456 days ago
"Screening icons": Apple changes the rules on app tracking for personalised advertising

The article discusses Apple's decision to change its rules regarding app tracking for personalized advertising. The new policy aims to enhance user privacy by requiring apps to obtain explicit consent before collecting data for targeted ads. This shift has sparked debate among developers and advertisers, who argue it could impact revenue streams and user experience. The headline uses the phrase 'Abschreckende Symbole' (deterrent symbols), suggesting potential negative implications for companies relying on tracking technologies.

Bias read (Center): The article presents Apple's policy change as a technical update with implications for privacy and business models, without overtly favoring either side. It highlights both the regulatory shift and industry reactions but does not take a clear ideological stance. The framing remains balanced between䶀

Why factuality (60): This article provides minimal content beyond the headline, offering little detail on the actual changes or the broader context of the Bundeskartellamt ruling. It lacks specific information about the nature of the adjustments to Apple’s tracking framework or the legal basis for the decision. As a res

Why objectivity (45): The article has a very limited scope and appears to lack any substantial analysis or balance. It presents only a superficial summary without providing context, potential implications, or contrasting viewpoints, leading to a highly one-sided and incomplete representation.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories