Seems like a false equivalence and trying to forcefit two things. It's not a binary choice as the writer puts it. Apple's tracking transparency gave users a cho

Seems like a false equivalence and trying to forcefit two things. It's not a binary choice as the writer puts it. Apple's tracking transparency gave users a choice whether to enable tracking/analytics outside the app usage. (inside the app, any company would know what the user is doing with right analytics stack). Every affected company had a choice to either continue offering the same product or make changes to their model. Any affected company could have just said, "Hey, we need personalized ads to pay our costs and that is what keeps this service free. If you think it's intrusive, we respect the choice, but we cannot offer it for free." Apple could not have stopped it or delisted the app for changing the business model. Here, EU is basically denying that option to Facebook. > In competition, actions which are legal when you’re not a monopoly become illegal when you are a monopoly. This sentence represents basic lack of understanding of the monopolistic behavior. See Qualcomm's antitrust case which they won on appeal in both EU and US which they could not have won if this sentence was true.