Apple has been sued for $2.7 billion over App Tracking Transparency rules
Apple is facing a £2 billion ($2.7 billion) lawsuit over its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy, filed by a former UK Competition and Markets Authority official on behalf of app developers. The suit alleges Apple imposed stricter tracking rules on third-party developers than on its own services, giving its advertising business an unfair advantage. This adds to mounting regulatory scrutiny of ATT, which Apple introduced in 2021 to let users control cross-app and cross-site tracking, but which critics say has been applied inconsistently.
Apple maintains it is "bound by the exact same requirements as all developers," but the policy has already drawn investigations in France, Italy, Poland and Germany. Germany's Federal Cartel Office recently found that Apple's own ATT pop-ups were more likely to encourage user consent than those shown for third-party apps, prompting Apple to agree to changes in the EU. France's competition authority previously fined Apple €150 million (about $175 million) over the same issue last year.
- Apple sued for £2bn/$2.7bn over App Tracking Transparency practices
- Lawsuit claims Apple favoured its own apps over third-party developers
- Follows EU probes and a €150m French fine over ATT last year
New here? Start with this
Apple's App Tracking Transparency (ATT) system, introduced in 2021, requires apps to ask users for permission before tracking their activity across other apps and websites for advertising purposes. It was billed as a privacy protection, but developers and advertisers have long complained that Apple applies different, looser rules to its own apps and services than it does to third parties, giving Apple's own advertising business an edge.
The current £2 billion lawsuit is a class-action-style claim brought on behalf of app developers by a former UK Competition and Markets Authority official, adding to a string of investigations into ATT already under way in France, Italy, Poland and Germany. These probes matter because Apple controls the rules for every app on iPhones and iPads, so any finding that it favours itself could affect how millions of apps operate and how much advertising revenue flows to developers versus Apple.
Apple says all developers face the same requirements, but regulators in some countries have found evidence suggesting otherwise, including that Apple's own consent pop-ups were more effective at getting users to agree to tracking than those shown to third-party apps. The outcome of this case could shape how tech giants are allowed to set rules that apply to both themselves and the companies that depend on their platforms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Apple's defenders argue that App Tracking Transparency was a genuine pro-consumer innovation, giving ordinary users a simple, meaningful choice over being tracked across apps and websites, something regulators and privacy advocates had long demanded of the whole industry. They contend that Apple applies a single consistent technical framework to all developers, including itself, and that any differences in consent rates reflect users' greater trust in Apple's own services rather than a rigged system. From this view, treating a privacy feature as an antitrust violation risks punishing a company for prioritising user control, and could deter other platforms from introducing similar consumer protections in future.
The case against
Critics argue that Apple used the language of privacy to entrench a significant commercial advantage, since its own advertising and services businesses were not subject to the same friction-heavy consent prompts imposed on rival developers. They point to concrete findings, including Germany's Federal Cartel Office conclusion that Apple's pop-ups were more likely to secure consent than third-party equivalents, and France's prior €150 million fine, as evidence this was not a hypothetical harm but a documented pattern across multiple jurisdictions. On this view, a dominant gatekeeper cannot be allowed to design the rules of a market it also competes in, and only sustained legal and regulatory pressure will ensure a genuinely level playing field for developers who depend on Apple's platform.