Introduction: Apple app tracking rules under scrutiny
Apple app tracking rules have once again come under the spotlight today, as Germany’s antitrust regulator launches a formal review — or “market test” — of changes proposed by Apple aimed at addressing competition concerns triggered by its consent-prompt framework.
The stakes are high: this is not just about how users on iPhones respond to a pop-up, but whether Apple’s control of data and consent flows undermines fair competition in the digital ad and app ecosystem.
In this article, we unpack the background, what’s changing, why regulators are concerned, the possible outcomes — and why this could have ripple effects across Europe and the global tech world.
Background: Why Apple’s tracking rules are controversial
The ATT (App Tracking Transparency) framework
- In 2021, Apple introduced its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework (also referred to as ATTF) in iOS and related systems. The feature requires third-party apps to request explicit user consent before tracking their activity across other apps or websites — often used for targeted advertising.
- Apple positioned ATT as a win for user privacy — giving individuals control over their data.
Regulatory pushback: concerns of unfair advantage
However, the design and implementation of ATT triggered backlash from developers, ad networks, and regulators, especially in Europe. Key concerns:
- The framework imposed stricter data-access restrictions on third-party apps while exempting (or applying lighter requirements to) Apple’s own services.
- This asymmetry — where Apple’s apps could operate under different rules than third-party apps — amounted to what many call “self-preferencing.” This potentially gives Apple an unfair competitive advantage in advertising and apps distribution.
- For example: third-party publishers depending on ad-related tracking to monetize had to rely on user consent that many users decline — limiting their revenue. Meanwhile Apple could leverage its own integrated services with fewer constraints.
Because of these concerns, regulators in several European countries — including Germany and France — opened investigations into whether ATT violated competition laws.
Regulatory status: Apple classified as “of paramount cross-market significance”
In April 2023, the German authority Bundeskartellamt concluded that Apple qualifies under Section 19a of Germany’s Competition Act as a company of “paramount significance for competition across markets.”
That designation triggers stricter rules and enables the authority to impose preventive measures before substantial harm is proven — a proactive approach to antitrust enforcement.
In 2025, the scrutiny intensified: the authority formally accused Apple of abusing its market power — in part because of how it runs ATT.
What’s new: Apple’s revised consent prompts and the German market test
On December 2, 2025, the Bundeskartellamt announced it is now formally “testing” the changes Apple proposed to its app tracking rules.
What Apple agreed to change
- Apple committed to change the text and formatting of the consent prompt (ATT) to make it more neutral and aligned across both its own services and third-party apps.
- The goal is to make the prompts more consistent in wording, content and visual design, reducing any built-in bias or design-related nudging that may favor certain apps over others.
- Apple claims these changes preserve the “core user benefits” — meaning user privacy — while addressing competition concerns raised by regulators.
- Alongside the prompt redesign, Apple proposed to simplify the process for developers to secure user permission for advertising-related data processing in compliance with data-protection norms.
What the review involves
- The “market test” will gather feedback from publishers, media groups, other regulators, and the relevant data protection authorities (federal and regional).
- The authorities will evaluate whether the revised consent flow sufficiently removes any unfair competitive effects — or whether further changes are needed.
What remains contentious: “Attribution” remains untouched
A key sticking point: Apple’s proposals do not address how it measures advertising performance — a process known as “attribution.” Apple intends to continue attribution without obtaining additional user consent.
The regulator flagged this as a major concern: even if consent prompts become neutral, continuing attribution without equal consent requirements may still give Apple an unfair advantage over third-party advertisers and ad networks.
As of now, the final ruling will come only after the completion of the market test.
Why regulators — and many developers & publishers — remain skeptical
Even with Apple’s proposed adjustments, critics argue that the underlying structural issues remain. Here’s why:
1. Consent prompt redesign ≠ equal underlying treatment
A “more neutral” prompt may improve optics — but if the backend attribution and data-processing rules remain skewed in Apple’s favour, third-party apps still suffer. Neutral prompts alone cannot fix the asymmetric advantage.
2. Attribution without explicit consent can perpetuate dominance
By allowing itself to continue attributing ad performance without obtaining the same user consent third-party apps must, Apple may still maintain an advantage for its own services, or give preference to Apple’s ad business over independent ad networks. That undercuts the fairness principle regulators are trying to enforce.
3. Market dominance: a structural problem
As noted earlier, Apple is already legally recognized in Germany as a “company of paramount cross-market significance,” meaning its dominance is structural — not just limited to one app or product. This means even well-intentioned changes might not suffice; deeper structural adjustments may be required (e.g. equal obligations for all apps, including Apple’s own).
4. Precedent matters: Europe is watching
This isn’t an isolated German case. Other EU countries are evaluating (or have already penalized) Apple over ATT. For instance, earlier in 2025 the Autorité de la concurrence (France’s competition authority) imposed a fine of €150 million on Apple for abuses connected to ATT.
If Germany’s review leads to stricter remedial orders, it could empower other regulators across EU member states to demand similar changes — pushing Apple to overhaul its global policies.
Broader context: EU digital regulation and Apple’s troubled relationship with it
The review of Apple’s tracking rules comes at a time when European regulators are increasingly assertive in enforcing rules against Big Tech. Two broader developments are relevant:
- The introduction of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which targets companies with significant market power — often referred to as “gatekeepers.” Under the DMA, such firms must satisfy obligations related to fairness, transparency, and interoperability.
- A precedent in April 2025: the European Commission found that Apple violated the DMA’s obligations — fining Apple for failing to comply with anti-steering rules that would allow app developers to inform customers about alternatives outside the App Store.
The outcome of the current ATT review could influence — or be influenced by — other ongoing regulatory pressures.
What this means for different stakeholders
For users (iPhone/iOS users)
- If regulators force Apple to adopt more neutral consent prompts and possibly curb attribution-without-consent, users may truly get a fairer, more transparent choice. Consent dialogs won’t be designed to nudge towards “Allow Tracking,” and data processing will be more transparent.
- Over time, such regulatory pressure could push third-party app developers and ad networks to adopt better privacy-respecting practices — or even use alternate ad models (less dependent on invasive tracking).
For app developers & publishers
- Neutral prompts are a good start, but unless attribution rules change, third-party developers may still struggle to monetize effectively, especially smaller publishers relying on ad revenue.
- If the regulator forces Apple to change attribution practices or treats Apple’s own apps like third-party apps (equal rules), it could level the playing field — potentially boosting competition and giving smaller developers a fair shot.
- On the other hand, if the review fails to deliver structural fixes, smaller players may continue bearing the brunt of asymmetric consent/tracking rules, putting them at a disadvantage vs. Apple’s integrated services.
For advertisers & ad networks
- The outcome could reshape how ad performance data is collected and shared on iOS devices — possibly reducing reliance on Apple’s services or forcing them to adopt uniform consent mechanisms.
- It may also open up opportunities for independent ad networks to compete more fairly, if Apple loses its advantage.
For regulators & policymakers
- A robust remedial order against Apple could set a precedent across Europe — shaping how digital markets are regulated and how major platforms must treat third parties.
- Conversely, if Apple’s revisions are accepted as sufficient, it could make it harder for regulators elsewhere to push for deeper structural reforms.
What to watch next — Potential Scenarios & Implications
Here are several possible outcomes (and their implications) depending on how the “market test” and subsequent review go:
Scenario 1: Regulators accept Apple’s changes — no deeper action
- Apple implements neutral prompts globally; third-party apps and Apple’s own services use the same consent flow.
- Attribution remains, but regulators judge that the reduced UI bias is enough.
- Implication: Cosmetic fix; smaller developers and ad networks may still remain at a disadvantage. Regulatory pressure may cool, setting a precedent that “prompt neutrality” suffices.
Scenario 2: Regulators demand deeper fixes — e.g. equal treatment for attribution
- Apple is required to apply the same data-processing and attribution rules across its own apps and third-party apps — perhaps requiring explicit consent for all data uses.
- Could include changes in how Apple measures ad performance, or how it allows third-party ad networks to access data.
- Implication: Major shift in Apple’s iOS ecosystem — could level the playing field, foster competition, and change monetization models for apps and ad networks. Could also influence regulations globally.
Scenario 3: Regulators push for even more structural reforms
- Beyond ATT and attribution: possibly demand interoperability, alternative app distribution, or other changes to reduce platform dominance.
- May build on broader EU regulation (e.g. DMA) to enforce greater competition.
- Implication: A structural shift in how Apple runs its ecosystem — possibly reducing its “walled garden” model, opening iOS to more competition, impacting user experience, developer revenue models, and overall market dynamics.
Scenario 4: Apple complies partially — mixed outcome
- Apple rolls out neutral prompts, tweaks consent UX, but keeps attribution mostly intact.
- Regulators accept some changes for now, but reserve right for future action; smaller players remain cautious.
- Implication: Incremental improvements, but core structural issues remain. The competitive imbalance may persist, though with less overt bias.
What this means globally — why this matters beyond Germany
- Germany’s regulator action — especially under Section 19a of its Competition Act — is a strong example of proactive antitrust enforcement, not waiting for consumer harm but acting before irreversible damage to competition occurs. That model may be emulated by other jurisdictions (EU or beyond).
- With the broader momentum under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, and past actions by the European Commission against Apple under DMA rules, the ATT review could feed into a larger EU-wide shift in how Big Tech platforms are regulated.
- If Apple is forced to change structurally — not just UI design — it may redefine how iOS behaves globally (since Apple often applies changes globally for consistency). That could reset norms around consent, tracking, privacy, and ad monetization — potentially benefiting users, competitors, and smaller developers worldwide.
- For advertisers and ad networks, this could elevate competition — meaning more opportunities for third-party ad providers, and less reliance on Apple’s in-house ad system.
Conclusion
The news that Germany’s Bundeskartellamt is formally testing Apple’s revised app tracking rules is more than just regulatory housekeeping: it’s potentially a turning point in how data, privacy, competition, and market control intersect in the App Store era.
While Apple’s proposed neutral consent prompts may help address concerns at the surface level, the deeper issues — particularly attribution without equal consent and self-preferencing — remain at the heart of the debate.
A robust regulatory response could reshape Apple’s iOS ecosystem and challenge the dominance of Big Tech in ways that reverberate far beyond Germany. For app developers, publishers, advertisers, and users everywhere, the outcome will matter.
At the same time, failure to secure meaningful structural change might stall competition, entrench existing inequalities, and leave the status quo largely intact under a veneer of compliance.
As regulators gather feedback and prepare their final decision, all eyes are on the “market test” — and what it might signal for the future of digital competition and privacy.
For more tech related updated, visit Lot Of Bits.
