Germany’s antitrust architect is investigating Apple’s personal data protection framework from 2022. On Thursday, releasing preliminary findings from this detector, Bundeskartellamt (FCO) said that the iPhone manufacturer may not face the programmakers Law requires.
The antitrust guard said that he believes that Apple’s behavior could be equivalent to self-reflection. Apple is forbidden to prefer its own services and products in Germany since April 2023, when it has undergone special abuse inspections aimed at regulating the power of the Big Tech.
According to the broader PAN-EU (DMA) Digital Markets Act, Apple is also prohibited by self-promotion on iOS and a handful of other basic platform services such as the App Store.
The issue of privacy is now related to Apple’s transparency framework (ATTF), which allows iOS users to guide third -party applications not to monitor their use to target ads.
The issue, for FCO, is the difference in how Apple addresses the monitoring rights requested by third parties over its own iOS users’ monitoring.
“[T]The strict requirements under the ATTF context only apply to third -party app providers, not to Apple itself, “FCO writes in a press release. “In the Bundeskartellamt preliminary view, this can be banned on the basis of specific abuse control provisions for large digital companies (Article 19A (2) of the German Competition Act (GWB) and in accordance with the general provisions of abuse of Article 102 TFEU [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]. ”
“Consent dialogues for Apple applications and third -party applications are virtually different,” it continues. “Current design, in particular the wording, of the Apple applications dialogue makes it more likely that users will consent to that of the ATTF dialogue for third -party applications.”
FCO reports that three aspects of the frame increase the concerns of competition.
First, while Apple defines monitoring “in a way that only covers the processing of data for advertising purposes between companies”, according to FCO, the “strict” ATTF rules “themselves do not cover Apple’s practice to combine user data throughout Its ecosystem – from App Store, Apple ID and connected devices – and their use for advertising purposes. “
Secondly, it emphasizes how third -party applications can appear up to four consecutive consent under the ATTF, while Apple applications show two two. Neither the pop -up windows around Apple applications refer to “Editing User Data by Apple in Services (known as first -part) as such”, FCO evaluation.
Finally, the guard believes that the design of iOS consent monitoring dialogues is unevenly treated. FCO reports that Apple dialogues are designed to encourage users to let it process their data, while those for third -party applications direct users to refuse them.
Commenting on a statement, Andreas Mundt, FCO president, said: “Apple is taking advantage of a comprehensive digital ecosystem, which […] Provides Apple extensive access to advertising -related user data. Personalized advertising is also of great commercial importance for other companies wishing to offer free applications, some of which compete with Apple services, in the App Store […] However, ATTF makes it much more difficult for competitors of applications to have access to advertising user data. ”
Apple Tom Parker’s spokesman sent email to a statement in which the company defended how it operates: “Application Transparency gives users greater control of their privacy through a required, clear and easy -to -use understanding for one thing: .
“We firmly believe that users should check when their data is shared and with whom and continue to be constructively involved with the Federal Cartel Office to ensure that users continue to have transparency and control their data,” the company.
The technological giant now has the opportunity to respond to the FCO findings.
Developers often complained that Apple has double standards in relation to its own applications and services against third parties. Treatment of the third party company is also under control of DMA: the European Commission issued a preliminary finding of a breach last summer on how Apple exploits the App Store.
It is worth noting that Apple attracts the definition of FCO, seeking to overturn Watchdog’s ability to exercise specific abuse powers. The result of this appeal is pending a court ruling due to March 18, 2025.
Meanwhile, forces apply to Apple and FCO’s action highlights how Apple and a handful of other defined technological giants are involved in significant multiple fronts in Europe.
