According to TechRepublic, Germany’s Bundeskartellamt antitrust authority has launched a crucial market test of Apple’s proposed solutions to competition concerns around its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework. The investigation, which began in June 2022, found Apple gave itself a systematic advantage by narrowly defining “tracking” to exempt its own data practices and by designing biased consent dialogues. Apple has agreed to introduce neutral consent prompts for all apps, but the final assessment is pending. Companies found guilty of breaching Germany’s rules face fines up to 10% of their annual global turnover. This case stems from Apple’s iOS 14.5 ATT rollout in April 2021, which led to user opt-in rates as low as 11-15% for third-party apps. The authority’s chief, Andreas Mundt, confirmed the test, with a final ruling expected after a missed court deadline of March 18, 2025.
The privacy weapon that backfired
Here’s the thing: Apple‘s big privacy play seems to have totally backfired from a regulatory standpoint. They rolled out ATT with a lot of fanfare about user control, and it worked—maybe too well. It devastated the ad tracking capabilities of everyone else. But regulators in Germany and France looked under the hood and said, “Wait a minute.” They found the architecture was rigged. Apple’s own apps faced simpler, fewer prompts, while its definition of “tracking” conveniently carved out its own massive first-party data ecosystem. So you get this crazy outcome where Apple champions privacy publicly while allegedly building a moat around its own advertising business. It’s a masterclass in using a noble cause for competitive gain, and the regulators have stopped buying the excuse.
This is a global reckoning
This isn’t just a German problem. It’s a blueprint. France already hit Apple with a €150 million fine over similar ATT issues. And the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is looming, with explicit rules against this kind of self-preferencing. What Germany decides here could set a massive precedent. It answers a fundamental question that’s popping up everywhere: can a company use “privacy” as a blanket justification for behavior that crushes competitors? The emerging consensus from regulators seems to be a firm “no.” They’re calling it the “privacy-antitrust curse,” where including privacy in antitrust cases lets big firms game the system. Apple’s in a real bind because its whole brand is built on privacy. But if that branding comes at the cost of fair competition, the legal bills are going to keep piling up.
So what happens next?
The pressure on Apple is immense. They’re scrambling with proposed fixes, like making consent prompts neutral. But a market test means regulators are asking the industry—Apple’s competitors and partners—”Do these changes actually level the playing field?” That feedback will be brutal. And if the fixes are deemed insufficient, we’re looking at potential daily fines on top of that possible 10% of global revenue penalty. That’s existential money. Basically, Apple needs Germany to sign off on its solution, or it faces a regulatory domino effect. Every other watchdog watching this case will pounce. It reshapes the entire argument. No longer is it enough to say “we’re protecting users.” You have to prove you’re not breaking the market in the process. It’s a new, much tougher rulebook, and Apple is being forced to read it.
