Apple is getting a lump of coal for Christmas.
The company has been fined €98 million (roughly $116 million) by Italy’s competition regulator, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM), over how it enforces privacy rules on third-party apps. The decision centers on Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework and how it treats third-party developers compared to Apple’s own apps.
In a nutshell, the antitrust group says Apple abused its App Store position by imposing overly burdensome consent requirements on developers that go beyond what privacy law demands and are stricter than the rules Apple applies to itself. In other words: self-preferencing.
Specifically, third-party apps must ask users twice for permission to track data for advertising (ATT prompt + GDPR), while Apple’s own apps aren’t subject to the same friction. According to the regulator, this reduced opt-in rates for developers that rely on ads.
Apple has said it disagrees (shocking!) with the ruling and plans to appeal.
Why This Matters:
ATT has been one of the most disruptive changes in digital advertising over the past few years. While Apple frames it as a privacy win, regulators are increasingly questioning whether Apple is using privacy as a competitive lever to enforce tougher rules on others.
This ruling follows a similar fine in France earlier this year ($162 million), signaling growing scrutiny in Europe over whether Apple’s privacy posture crosses into anticompetitive behavior. This feels notable because Europe has always been a leading proponent of online privacy protections, yet this case shows that how those rules are applied—and to who—matters just as much when they fundamentally reshape ad economics.
Experts React:
Here’s mobile analyst Eric Seufert’s take on X about the fine:
Our Take:
This isn’t about whether privacy is good. We know it is. Instead, this is about consistency and market power.
Not to get on a soapbox, but, in our view, Apple has used privacy performatively as a marketing tool, positioning itself as the steward of privacy in its ecosystem while not really abiding by the same rules it imposes on others. It’s good to see that approach being challenged.
