Apple will alteration its rules connected really app providers tin usage personification information connected iPhones and iPads for personalised advertising. The Bundeskartellamt objected to the measurement successful which Apple had designed different consent requests for Apple’s ain offerings and third-party apps. Apple considers its rules (set retired successful its alleged “Apple Tracking Transparency Framework”, ATTF) to beryllium compliant pinch title law; nevertheless, the institution offered commitments which the Bundeskartellamt has now declared binding. The proceeding has frankincense been concluded.
Apple’s ATTF introduced rules for third-party app providers connected the usage of information connected iPhones and iPads. For circumstantial forms of cross-company information use, third-party app providers must get not only personification consent nether information protection law, but besides further consent done a punctual that is predefined by Apple. However, these ATTF rules do not use to Apple’s ain offerings; Apple uses personification information from its ain ecosystem and truthful its ain punctual to petition personification consent to personalised advertising.
Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt: “It is cardinal that individual information and privateness are protected efficaciously erstwhile utilizing apps. Apple is allowed to supply for a level of protection for its users that exceeds the minimum ineligible requirements. However, if Apple sets up further rules wrong its ecosystem for the usage of data, these rules must, nether Germany’s typical maltreatment proviso for ample integer companies, not dainty its ain offerings amended than those of its competitors. This is precisely wherever our title concerns arose. Apple will now align the consent requests overmuch much intimately and springiness third-party app providers much state to harvester the basal requests successful a sensible way.”
Many third-party apps are, astatine slightest partly, funded done advertising. Personalised advertizing tin make higher revenues for app publishers. Other apps are funded done personification payments, for illustration for the acquisition of the app aliases subscriptions. In these cases Apple often receives a commission, whereas Apple mostly does not person a stock of the app publishers’ advertizing revenue. As a wide rule, individual information whitethorn successful immoderate arena only beryllium utilized for advertizing purposes if users springiness their consent successful accordance pinch the requirements of German and European information protection law.
Apple based on successful the proceeding that the ATTF is meant to protect personification privateness and that it is simply a title law-compliant measurement that besides helps Apple position itself arsenic providing a peculiarly precocious level of information protection. By contrast, the associations admitted to the proceeding, representing the branded-goods, media and advertizing industries, took the position that, being a powerful gatekeeper, Apple was not allowed to group up additional, “extra-statutory” rules successful the first spot if these rules restrict different companies successful their business activities.
In the Bundeskartellamt’s preliminary assessment, title rule mostly besides allows powerful companies specified arsenic Apple to return measures to protect their users’ privacy. However, the differences betwixt the consent petition utilized for Apple’s ain offerings and the consent petition predefined by Apple for third-party apps exceeded what could beryllium justified based connected differences successful types of information processing. The wording, creation and action options of the petition utilized for Apple’s ain offerings had the imaginable to promote users to springiness their consent, whereas they had the imaginable to discourage consent for third-party apps. In addition, third-party apps successful immoderate cases had to petition consent respective times moreover erstwhile users had already fixed information protection law-compliant consent.
With its operating systems and its App Store, Apple controls a cardinal infrastructure for the distribution of apps connected its devices. In addition, Apple offers its ain apps and advertizing space. This dual domiciled makes Apple taxable to circumstantial title rule requirements. In the Bundeskartellamt’s preliminary assessment, location was a consequence that, by mounting retired different rules, Apple was favouring its ain offerings and impeding third-party app publishers.
Apple will modify consent punctual and simplify consent requests
Under the commitments that person now been declared binding, Apple will align the consent prompts for its ain offerings and for third-party apps overmuch much closely. This involves removing perchance discouraging symbols and wording successful Apple’s predefined requests for third-party providers. The creation of the consent prompts will beryllium neutral successful position of content, wording and layout. In addition, app publishers and contented providers, specified arsenic media publishers, will beryllium fixed much scope to explicate to users what value personalised advertizing has for their offering and their business model.
Under the commitments, Apple will besides trim the complexity of the existent consent petition architecture for third-party providers. In particular, app publishers will beryllium fixed much state to harvester the consent petition required by Apple pinch the consent requests required nether information protection rule aliases link them successful a measurement that is clear to users. The improved conditions whitethorn besides use advertisers and method work providers to the advertizing industry.
Andreas Mundt: “It is expressly not our purpose to thief execute the highest imaginable levels of consent to personalised advertising. We want to guarantee that users tin make a free and informed decision. Users who do not wish to let their information to beryllium utilized for personalised advertizing must beryllium capable to make an arsenic free and informed determination arsenic users who intend to consent to specified information use. The caller consent requests are aimed astatine amended enabling users to make this decision.”
The Bundeskartellamt’s proceeding only examined whether Apple was successful usurpation of German aliases European title law. It did not purpose astatine enforcing information protection law. To debar imaginable delineation issues pinch information protection law, the Bundeskartellamt exchanged views pinch the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) and the Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA).
Cooperation pinch different European title authorities
Competition authorities of different EU Member States person besides conducted proceedings concerning ATTF, immoderate of which person already been concluded. To guarantee that European title rule is applied consistently, the Bundeskartellamt maintained adjacent and constructive speech pinch the applicable European authorities and the European Commission wrong the European Competition Network (ECN) passim the proceeding.
In 2 proceedings by different European title authorities concerning ATTF, the authorities person already imposed important fines connected Apple. Last year, the French and the Italian title authorities imposed fines connected Apple totalling 150 million and 98.6 million euros, respectively. The Bundeskartellamt’s proceeding intends astatine achieving that the early creation of the ATTF complies pinch title law. The solution now achieved successful Germany forms portion of this European speech and whitethorn besides impact the early creation of the ATTF successful different EU Member States.
Special maltreatment power of ample integer companies
The Bundeskartellamt’s proceeding was based on, successful particular, Section 19a of the German Competition Act (GWB) and the prohibition of maltreatment of a ascendant position nether Article 102 TFEU. Section 19a GWB gives the Bundeskartellamt typical powers of maltreatment power of ample integer companies that are recovered to beryllium of paramount value for title crossed markets. In a first step, the Bundeskartellamt issues a determination declaring that a institution has this typical competitory position. In a 2nd step, the authority whitethorn prohibit the institution from engaging successful definite anti-competitive conduct.
The Bundeskartellamt issued a determination uncovering that Apple is of paramount value for title crossed markets successful April 2023. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed this determination successful March 2025.
Course of the proceeding
The Bundeskartellamt initiated the proceeding against Apple successful June 2022. In February 2025 the authority informed Apple and the associations admitted to the proceeding of its preliminary ineligible appraisal (see press merchandise of 13 February 2025). Later successful the proceeding, Apple offered commitments, which the Bundeskartellamt assessed successful a marketplace trial successful December 2025 (see property merchandise of 2 December 2025). After further amendments to the commitments, the Bundeskartellamt has now declared them binding and concluded the proceeding.
Apple has 4 months from work of the determination to instrumentality the changes projected successful the commitments and, earlier implementation, will trial them together pinch app publishers. The commitments use for 7 years and will beryllium monitored by an independent monitoring trustee.
Further specifications connected the proceeding, the changes to the ATTF and their effects tin beryllium recovered in the accompanying FAQ document.
English (US) · 
Indonesian (ID) · 
