The French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a €150 million fine on Apple for abusing its dominant position between 2021 and 2023 as a distributor of mobile applications on iOS and iPadOS devices through the implementation of “artificially complex” requirements relating to privacy protection.[1]
The FCA found that Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (“ATT”) design imposed disproportionate constraints on third-party app publishers and favoured its own advertising ecosystem. While privacy protection objectives themselves are legitimate, the FCA concluded that Apple’s requirements with respect to privacy protection by third-party apps created unfair asymmetry and harmed competition, particularly for smaller publishers.
Background On The ATT Framework
Introduced in 2021 (with iOS 14.5), Apple’s ATT framework requires third-party apps to obtain explicit user consent via a standardized pop-up before tracking activity across apps or websites for advertising purposes.[2]
While Apple presented the ATT as a privacy-centric innovation, advertisers and third-party app developers argued it distorted competition by subjecting third-party apps to multiple consent prompts, when Apple’s own apps faced fewer restrictions.[3]
The FCA’s investigation stemmed from a complaint by French advertising associations Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) France, Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) France, Union Des Entreprises de Conseil et Achat Media (UDECAM), and Syndicat des Régies Internet (SRI), which alleged ATT’s design unfairly advantaged Apple’s ecosystem.[4]
The complainants noted that Apple failed to apply equivalent data collection standards to its own services, such as its App Store search ads. ATT system makes opt-ins less likely, with studies suggesting up to 80% of users declined tracking.[5]
In 2021, the FCA rejected a request for interim measures ahead of Apple’s implementation of the ATT policies but decided to pursue the investigation on the merits.[6]
The FCA Found That Apple Abused Its Dominant Position In iOS/iPadOS App Distribution
The FCA confirmed Apple holds a dominant position in iOS/iPadOS app distribution.[7] It ruled that Apple’s ATT implementation between April 2021 and July 2023 violated Article 102 of the TFEU and Article L. 420-2 of the French Commercial Code on several grounds:
- Artificially Complex Framework Penalizing Third-Party Application Publishers. The FCA found that the ATT imposes unnecessary complexity on publishers of third-party applications within the iOS ecosystem. Consent mechanism under ATT fails to meet the consent requirements of applicable laws, in particular the French Data Protection Act.[8] Publishers must therefore deploy their own consent management mechanism, in addition to ATT.[9] This results in users facing multiple consent pop-ups, thereby making the use of third-party applications excessively complex.
- Operating Rules Undermining Framework Neutrality. The FCA noted that the operational rules governing ATT compromise its neutrality. While users can decline advertising tracking with a single refusal, they are required to confirm their consent twice when opting in. The FCA considered that “given the particular responsibility that applies to Apple due to its dominant position, it is incumbent upon Apple to ensure the neutrality of its system, so as not to unjustifiably penalize one method of obtaining consent over another.”[10]
- Asymmetry In Treatment Between Apple and Publishers. The FCA also identified an asymmetry in Apple’s treatment of its own services compared to third-party publishers.[11] Third-party publishers are required to obtain double consent (via two successive pop-ups) from users for tracking across external sites and applications, while Apple did not seek user consent for its own applications until iOS 15 was introduced.[12] Despite subsequent changes, this asymmetry persists. Apple now uses a single “Personalized Advertising” pop-up to collect user consent for its own apps while continuing to mandate double consent for third-party publishers.[13]
The FCA found that Apple’s practice caused “clear economic harm” to application publishers and advertising service providers.[14] The FCA noted that it specifically penalised smaller publishers as they depend on third-party data collection to a much larger extent than integrated platforms.[15]
Striking The Right Balance Between Privacy And Competition
The FCA recalled that enacting consumer protection rules “does not exempt [a dominant undertaking] from its special responsibility to implement this policy under conditions compatible with Article 102 of the TFEU.”[16]
In this respect, France’s data protection authority (CNIL) advised that limited adjustments—such as reducing redundant consent steps—could have preserved ATT’s privacy benefits without generating anti-competitive effects.[17]
The FCA has chosen not to impose remedies, but noted that Apple would need to adopt “changes necessary to avoid the drawbacks resulting from the limitations of the system in its current form, if necessary in consultation with the competent authorities”.[18] The President of the FCA explained that the FCA is “letting Apple decide on how they want to comply” and that “Apple will certainly have to […] call our data collection authority [CNIL] and also discuss it with them”.[19]
Apple has filed an appeal against the FCA decision.[20]
Broader Implications
The FCA decision reflects a calibrated approach to balancing innovation, privacy, and fair competition. By penalizing Apple’s implementation—not the concept of ATT itself—the ruling preserves room for privacy-enhancing tools while cautioning against anticompetitive misuse.
While companies can leverage privacy as a competitive differentiator, design choices must be objectively justified when they are implemented by dominant undertakings. Overly restrictive measures risk antitrust liability if they disproportionately harm rivals.
The case underscores deepening collaboration between competition and data protection authorities. The CNIL’s advisory role signals a trend toward cross-regulatory enforcement, where legal issues relating to privacy are assessed alongside market harm. It is also an example of FCA’s cooperation with other European competition authorities, as confirmed by Benoit Coeuré.[21] Similar cases are pending in Germany,[22] Italy,[23] Romania,[24] and Poland.[25]
Apple’s differential treatment of third-party services echoes broader EU concerns about gatekeepers under the Digital Markets Act. The decision may embolden national authorities to take action against anti-steering provisions (i.e., contractual or technical restrictions imposed by a dominant platform that prevent or limit business from directing or encouraging customers to use alternative options outside the platform) and asymmetric data protection requirements by gatekeepers.
[1] French Competition Authority, Decision No 25-D-02 of 28 March 2025 (“FCA, Decision No 25-D-02), available at: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/25d02_version_publique.pdf.
[2] Apple, Press Release, “Upcoming AppTrackingTransparency requirements”, 20 April 2021, available at: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=ecvrtzt2.
[3] Financial Times, “Apple’s privacy changes create windfall for its own advertising business”, 17 October 2021, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/074b881f-a931-4986-888e-2ac53e286b9d.
[4] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 1. See also L’Usine Digitale, “L’Autorité de la concurrence refuse de suspendre la nouvelle politique de tracking publicitaire d’Apple”, 12 April 2023, available at: https://www.usine-digitale.fr/article/l-autorite-de-la-concurrence-serait-prete-a-ouvrir-une-enquete-visant-les-regles-de-tracking-publicitaire-d-apple.N2120591.
[5] Lennart Kraft, Bernd Skiera, Tim Koschella, “Economic Impact of Opt-in versus Opt-out Requirements for Personal Data Usage: The Case of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT)”, 7 October 2023, available at: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/3-Skiera-Economic-Impact-of-Opt-in-versus-Opt-out-Requirements-for-Personal-Data-Usage.pdf.
[6] French Competition Authority, Decision No 21-D-07 of 17 March 2021, available at: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/2025-03/21d07.pdf.
[7] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 482: “In light of the criteria established by decisional practice and case law, and based on the elements presented above, it should be concluded that Apple holds a dominant position on both sides of the distribution of mobile applications on iOS devices (publisher and consumer sides)” (translated from French). See also, para. 512: “It is precisely because Apple held a monopoly position in the market for the distribution of mobile applications on iOS devices that it was able to impose access rules to its App Store, including the mandatory implementation of the ATT policy” (translated from French).
[8] French Data Protection Act (loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, or “Loi Informatique et Libertés”), Art. 82.
[9] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, paras 520-521. In its Opinion of 17 December 2020, CNIL considered that, based on the information available to it, the system proposed by Apple would allow application publishers to obtain informed consent, in accordance with the applicable regulations, provided that the legally required information is included. The FCA noted that Apple failed to comply with these recommendations.
[10] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 527 (translated from French).
[11] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 534.
[12] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 535. In 2022, CNIL fined Apple €8 million for infringing Art. 82 of the French Data Protection Act, which transposes the ePrivacy Directive.
[13] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 536.
[14] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 566: “[t]he ATT framework has penalized the marketing of mobile applications to the detriment of publishers and consumers.”
[15] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, paras 554 and 591. Meta, Snapchat, Twitter and YouTube reportedly lost approx. $10 billion collectively post-ATT rollout. See Financial Times, “Snap, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube lose nearly $10bn after iPhone privacy changes”, 31 October 2021, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/4c19e387-ee1a-41d8-8dd2-bc6c302ee58e.
[16] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 501.
[17] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 660 : “The CNIL, first of all, in its opinion of December 17, 2020, noted that the ATT would only allow for fully informed consent if Apple supplemented the request with adjustments, which the company committed to do but did not carry out” (translated from French).
[18] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, para. 619.
[19] Mlex, “Apple given choice how to remedy app-tracking abuse, France’s Cœuré says”, 2 April 2025.
[20] FCA, Decision No 25-D-02, available at: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/decision/relative-des-pratiques-mises-en-oeuvre-dans-le-secteur-de-la-publicite-sur-applications.
[21] PaRR, “French Autorité coordinated with other European regulators in Apple ATT case”, 31 March 2025: “Coeuré said the Autorité has had “regular exchanges on the advancement of this antitrust probe with other national regulators and the European Commission (EC).”
[22] German Competition Authority, press release of 13 February 2025, available at: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/02_13_2025_ATTF.html.
[23] Italian Competition Authority, Case A561-A561B, press release of 11 May 2023, available at: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2023/5/A561-A561B.
[24] Romanian Competition Authority, press release of October 2023, available at: https://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Inv-App-oct-2023.pdf.
[25] Polish Competition Authority, press release of 13 December 2025, available at: https://archiwum.uokik.gov.pl/aktualnosci.php?news_id=18092.