• Imposing unfair contractual terms under the guise of protecting user data?
• The President of UOKiK has initiated antitrust proceedings against three Apple companies.
• President of UOKiK is investigating whether the privacy policy of the iOS and iPadOS operating systems violates competition law.

In 2021, Apple introduced a new user privacy policy called the App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATT). It applies to iOS and iPadOS operating systems from version 14.5 onwards. For users, this is visible in the form of questions about their consent to “tracking”.

– We suspect that the way the ATT policy is implemented in Apple’s operating systems may lead to unfair restrictions on competition. That is why I have initiated antitrust proceedings in this case, bringing charges of abuse of a dominant position against Apple, Apple Operations International and Apple Distribution International – says Tomasz Chróstny, the President of UOKiK.

Apple’s dual role

In addition to designing and manufacturing electronic equipment with its own integrated iOS or iPadOS operating systems, Apple is also a publisher of mobile applications and provides mobile advertising services. As part of these activities, Apple collects information about users, which is used to display personalised advertisements to them. In this respect, Apple competes with independent application publishers. At the same time, Apple acts as a kind of regulator for entities operating within its ecosystem. Apple sets the rules of operation – for itself and others – in the operating systems it controls.

Tracking and personalised advertising have the same effect

An example of regulatory action within Apple’s own ecosystem is the ATT policy, in which Apple has introduced its own definition of user “tracking”. According to Apple, this means combining user data collected from one entity’s app with user data collected from another entity’s app. This is what many independent app publishers do, working together to exchange information, such as consumer preferences. At the same time, Apple’s collection of user data is not considered “tracking”.

The consequence of this definition is that different messages are displayed on iPhone and iPad screens. In the case of third-party applications, users see a message asking for consent to “track” their activity, which is associated with negative connotations. In contrast, for Apple content, it is consent to “personalised advertising”. Furthermore, the message concerning Apple differs graphically from that concerning third parties. For example, the content visible on the consent or refusal buttons is different. In the case of Apple, it reads: “Enable personalised advertising” and “Disable personalised advertising”, while in the message from third-party applications, the order and content of the buttons are: “Ask the application not to track” and “Allow”.

– The wording of these consent messages – combined with their design – may lead to Apple receiving user permission to process data for advertising purposes more frequently than independent app publishers. After all, no one likes the idea of being “tracked”. Yet the practical effect is the same: profiling the user in order to deliver personalised advertisements tailored to their preferences and behaviour – says Tomasz Chróstny, the President of UOKiK.

Furthermore, the ATT policy does not arise from legal provisions regarding the protection of user privacy. This was confirmed by the President of the Personal Data Protection Office, who issued an opinion at the request of the President of UOKiK.

What the suspected practice could hypothetically look like

Barbara bought an iPad. After she started using it, she consented to personalised advertising when she opened one of Apple’s pre-installed applications. One consent automatically applied to all applications of the American company. Barbara then downloaded applications offered by other companies. In those cases, she saw a notification informing her that these applications would “track” her – and she did not grant consent. Meanwhile, Apple’s own activities involving the collection of her data and their use for personalised advertising were identical to those to which she had refused consent in third-party applications.

Possible impact of the suspected practices on the market

Unequal conditions for obtaining consent to provide personalised advertising may have particularly affected independent mobile app publishers, including Polish entrepreneurs. Restrictions on access to data could limit their ability to offer personalised advertising, reduce the value of advertising space sold within their applications, and weaken their negotiating position with advertisers.

– The collection of internet-user data is a controversial issue. Rules governing how businesses can collect and use user information are set out in personal data protection legislation. While owners of operating systems may establish their own rules, these must not violate competition law. We suspect that the ATT policy may have misled users about the level of privacy protection while simultaneously increasing Apple’s competitive advantage over independent publishers, thereby strengthening Apple’s position in the advertising market. Such behaviour may constitute an abuse of a dominant position, which is punishable by law with a fine of up to 10 per cent of turnover – says Tomasz Chróstny, the President of UOKiK.

Apple’s privacy policy under scrutiny in other countries

Antitrust authorities in Germany, Italy, and Romania are also examining the ATT policy. In March 2025, a French regulator issued a decision concerning Apple, imposing a fine of €150 million.