According to Ars Technica, Italy’s competition authority hit Apple with a €115 million fine (roughly $115 million USD) on Monday. The regulator, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA), alleges Apple abused its dominant market position with its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy introduced in 2021. The core complaint is that ATT forced third-party developers to get user consent twice for the same data collection, a process called “extremely burdensome.” The ICA found this policy reduced ad revenue for many developers, especially smaller ones, while Apple’s own App Store commissions and advertising division benefited. Apple has confirmed it plans to appeal the decision, defending ATT as a critical privacy tool for users. The fine stems from an investigation detailed in a press release from the ICA.
The double-consent dilemma
Here’s the thing about App Tracking Transparency: on its face, it’s a pro-user privacy feature, and it’s been widely praised as such. It gives users a clear pop-up asking if they want to allow an app to track them across other companies’ apps and websites. The problem Italy identified is in the implementation. Before an app can even show that system pop-up, Apple’s rules required developers to show their own, separate consent screen for data collection. So users were getting hit with two prompts. Many just said “no” to both, or got frustrated and dropped off. The ICA’s argument is brutal in its simplicity: Apple could have achieved the same privacy goal with a single, clear step. The double layer wasn’t about protection; it was a barrier.
business”>Winners, losers, and Apple’s ad business
So who won and who lost? The losers were clearly the third-party developers, particularly those relying on ad revenue. User opt-in rates plummeted after ATT, crippling a key monetization model. But the ICA points a direct finger at the winner: Apple itself. The regulator says Apple’s App Store commissions increased as developers struggled, and its own advertising business—which operates under different, more favorable rules within its walled garden—saw revenue grow. That’s the real kicker. It’s one thing to introduce a privacy rule that affects everyone equally. It’s another to introduce a rule that kneecaps your competitors’ revenue streams while giving your own services a relative advantage. The ICA isn’t buying that this was an accident.
A broader regulatory battle
This isn’t just about Italy or even just about ATT. It’s the latest salvo in a global war over whether Apple’s control of the iOS ecosystem is anti-competitive. Look at the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in Europe forcing sideloading, or the Epic Games lawsuit in the U.S. Regulators are increasingly viewing Apple’s “privacy” and “security” arguments with deep skepticism, seeing them as convenient shields for monopolistic behavior. Apple’s defense statement is the usual playbook: frame any challenge as an attack on user privacy itself. They’re saying the ICA is siding with “ad tech companies and data brokers.” But that’s a simplistic take. The question isn’t whether privacy is good. It’s whether Apple is using privacy rules as a weapon to distort competition. Italy seems pretty convinced they are.
What happens next?
Apple will appeal, of course. These fines are often reduced or dragged out for years. But the precedent is what matters. If this reasoning holds, it opens the door for other jurisdictions to scrutinize not just *what* Apple’s policies are, but *how* they’re implemented. Could it force a change to ATT? Possibly. The easiest fix would be to streamline the consent process into one step, as the ICA suggests. But would Apple do that if it undermines the competitive moat for its ads business? I doubt it. They’ll fight this tooth and nail. Basically, this fine is another brick in the wall of regulatory pressure that’s slowly closing in on Apple’s fortress. And the foundation of that fortress—total control over the user experience—is starting to look a lot more vulnerable.
