8 ms·
France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
- wonderwonder 2y ago[flagged]
- joshstrange 2y agoSo much dumb in this article that it's hard to figure out what's actually going on. I have to assume this this is the same "issue" with all Apple permissions. They can only be requested once by the app and if the user denies it then the user has to dig into Settings to turn it on later. To avoid/work around this a lot of app developers prompt the user before they trigger the OS-level prompt so that if the user says "no thanks" they don't "burn" their one chance to request a permission. Apple, it seems, doesn't use those "pre-consent" screens so it's only 1 dialog. Also, to my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow it's apps to prompt with the system dialog multiple times either so they are on equal footing it appears. As always it's important to see who is complaining/behind this: > The French investigation was triggered by a complaint lodged by advertising industry associations. Ahh, got it. The "Autorité de la concurrence" seems to suffer from the same issue almost all government regulators suffer from, they know fuck-all about technology which is perfectly summed up with this: > Benoit Coeure, the head of France's competition authority, "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling," Not only is it a "You need to make _A_ change but we won't tell you what it is"-type thing which is super annoying [0] but "Apple should change its app". If you don't understand the difference between an "App" and an "OS" then you should not be making rules for either. ATT is a 100% win for consumers and I don't for a second believe the BS around "but what about small businesses!", just look at all the people championing small business, it's check notes, ahh, yes, Facebook and large ad agencies, bastions of small business /s. [0] Yes, it's even more annoying when Apple does it to developers and I think we are all feeling a little bit of Schadenfreude over it.
- jonplackett 2y agoCan we just frikkin ban tracking completely and just see how that goes? I do not really care if some businesses can no longer make money in the way they like to. I’m sure they’ll figure it out if they have to. Businesses existed for a loooooong time without tracking their customers. I’m sure they can do it again.
- alabastervlog 2y agoIf governments would just ban the bad shiat app vendors do that Apple tries to curb, that’d be great, as it’d remove the main reason I have little practical choice but to use Apple devices.
- wkat4242 2y agoYeah I so wish the EU would simply do this.
- FridgeSeal 2y agoSome apps have a “pre permissions” pop up telling users about what permissions they’re about to ask for, before then initiating the iOS permissions pop up. The Apple apps go straight to the permissions pop up. How is it Apples fault they do this?
- klabb3 2y agoI think with Apple you agreed to let them do human experiments in the EULA when you’re unboxing your device. With yet-another-tower-defense games the agreement needs to be done on a per-app or at least per-publisher basis. The native iOS permission dialog is only a consent about what the app can do locally, and doesn’t list the 1034 close partners that they will share your DNA with. Makes me think.. one potential risk here is that vendors will band together under a common ”publisher” where apps can piggyback on consent from previous apps, just like the big guys do but without being part of the same feudal kingdom. Wouldn’t surprise me if this already happens.
- the_clarence 2y agoThis is such a bizarre move from Apple honestly. They're acting like they're letting users make a choice when realistically all users are going to choose not to get tracked. It's like a "do you want to install malware?" button. They just did it for the lulz and to hurt the finances of companies they don't like.
- kjreact 2y agoWow, do you work for these ad-tech companies? You’re totally correct that I don’t want to be tracked and I’m happy that Apple is trying to protect me from these predatory companies. If “hurt[ing] the finances” of these privacy invasive companies is your definition of “companies they don’t like” please sign me up. It’s a bizarre thing to say any one actually wants to be tracked.
- briandear 2y agoShouldn’t a user be able to choose if they want to be tracked? Of everyone says no, I’m not sure that’s a problem — unless your business model is intrusive tracking.
- lvl155 2y agoAt this point, I am convinced EU fines American tech companies for fun.
- epolanski 2y agoAnd you're wrong. That being said in that specific case this is odd because in general: - EU (albeit not France) gives plenty of time to OS developers to adapt and often talks to them directly when they are as big as Apple - The timing makes it look like with a different less disruptive administration it would've went differently In any case US companies abusing any possible loophole for paying pennies for decades in Europe don't get any sympathy by me.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoIt still surprises me how far the US has declined in pretty much all qualities of life. But Hacker News still has this sect of a community that despite EU regulations. Ones they crave from American governments. Like, do we want protections from corporations or to continue to let them stomp on using hopes they become the corporation one day?
- caseyy 2y agoI would ordinarily say something along the lines of “don’t blatantly break laws and you won’t be fined”, but this is a minor implementation detail. There are so many bigger fish to fry in consumer rights space that it just looks petty. And it’s questionable whether a law is even broken.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- MonkeyClub 2y ago150M is ridiculously low for a company with a 3.34T market cap. It's the equivalent of fining a millionaire 150 EUR, or a regular person fifteen cents. That's not a fine, it's a show put on for people who can't do division.
- freetime2 2y agoAgree it's a slap on the wrist for Apple. But the punishment fits the "crime" in this case, in my opinion. Enough to pay for the legal costs of enforcement, and get Apple's attention. But nothing terribly punitive, which I don't think is warranted in this case. I believe Apple's goal with the popups is to protect consumers' privacy from 3rd party apps, which is admirable. But where they went wrong is that they didn't apply the same process to themselves.
- pertymcpert 2y agoDo you actually agree with the fine? Don't give users a choice in tracking: complaints Give users a choice in tracking: now it's too many pop ups
- epolanski 2y agoThe issue here is that Apple only needs one click to sell your data (and yes they do it, they made 11B $ on ads last year) and others need two. In fact Apple is making more and more money on ads because they limit data access to third parties, but still sell yours in search and store.
- pertymcpert 2y agoNo, the issue in the article is that 3rd parties feel they need additional consent. That's on them if they choose to do it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- briandear 2y agoPerhaps they should fine the companies that want to do such intrusive tracking? Apple’s not sharing data with third parties for their internal stuff, that’s a big difference when Dominos wants to share with someone that isn’t Dominos.
- ddxv 2y agoApple only blocks sharing links from outside the app Dominos app to other apps (bolstering Apple's ad monopoly). Apple does nothing to stop Domino's from sharing the actual important data 3rd parties track in the Domino's app.
- shuckles 2y agoHuh? Basically every sentence in your comment is wrong. Apps can link to other apps. There's an entire framework called Universal Links to support this. And Apple is the only platform maker that requires apps to ask for permission before sharing data for tracking.
- ddxv 2y agoApps can link to other apps, but the receiving app can't track where that link came from (unlike HTTPS where you append anything you want, ie ref=otherapp.com). This has led to the large companies that reverse engineer this via web server hops, S2S calls and SDKs.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>Apple’s not sharing data with third parties for their internal stuff Yes, they do. >Apple does not sell your personal data including as “sale” is defined in Nevada and California. Apple also does not “share” your personal data as that term is defined in California. From their privacy policy (C. 1/31/2025) It's enough to comply for a definition under a single state in a single country. They make a billion off ads so I'm sure they loophole the heck out of that.
- chillacy 2y ago
- edelbitter 2y ago>pop-ups that let users reject tracking No pop-up is needed to reject what is already banned union-wide. Therefore, a banner that is trying to collect my explicit+specific+informed+voluntary consent to partially lift that ban is not a "pop-up that lets users reject". Its a "pop-up that lets users surrender" some of their rights & freedoms.
- vachina 2y agoYearly EU tax bill
- bjornsing 2y agoRefreshing to see a huge fine for too many pop-ups. It’s usually the other way around, which can be frustrating for those of us who don’t like pop-ups.
- ChrisRR 2y agoTo Apple, that's just a Tuesday
- barelysapient 2y agoI think Apple will need to make a new phone line. Call it the ePhone. In a few years we can compare who got it right.
- nottorp 2y agoActually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice. So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff. They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
- tedunangst 2y agoI'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?
- arrosenberg 2y agoIt's anti-competitive. Apple owns the platform and is giving preference to it's own apps on that platform. Every non-Apple app that competes with an Apple app is harmed.
- tedunangst 2y agoSo the solution is Apple will be forced to trust that apps asked properly, and grant whatever permissions the app claims I agreed to? And that's going to encourage me to use more third party apps?
- arrosenberg 2y agoIf they want to own the platform and compete on it simultaneously, they need to abide by the same common carrier rules they impose on everyone else. They could easily achieve this by enforcing the same level of security on their own apps.
- arcticbull 2y agoThey could just ask twice on their own apps.
- 2y ago
- woah 2y agoIf the EU isn't fining someone for tracking users too much, they're fining them for not tracking users enough.
- izacus 2y agoHaving US corporations fund our infrastructure, culture and subsidy programs is amazing!
- microtonal 2y agoThat's not what is going on here, right? The complaint is that the consent process is much harder for third-party apps than Apple apps and Apple cannot give itself advantages because Apple is a gatekeeper w.r.t iOS. A simple yes-no for third-party applications makes it easier for the user to reject tracking and doesn't make the process more cluttered than for Apple apps.
- pertymcpert 2y agoWhere did you get that part from? > Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said. "The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the iOS environment excessively complex." It's not harder at all. France are just mad that their small advertisers have to ask for permission again which is their own choice.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoThe part where you said >Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligation Yeah, as apple loves to do, rules for thee but not for me. >France are just mad that their small advertisers have to ask for permission again Because Apple's isn't good enough, but in apple fashion you must use it (but they dont). Yeah, anti-competitive.
- diggan 2y agoList of 2560 GDPR enforcements: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ Granted, not all are fines for tracking users, but all sorts of violations. Reasoning is included in the table.
- lurker9001 2y ago[dead]
- sylware 2y agoAny update on noscript/basic (x)html interop of french administration web sites? It is good to straighten the other guys, hopefully they do not forget about themselves.
- dmitrygr 2y ago"We will not tell you how to fix what we found to be 'wrong', reserve the right to find your fixes 'wrong' again, and will charge you more" At which point do we admit that this is simply extortion?
- johnnyanmac 2y agoMeanwhile, if they gave a specific solution "at what point do we admit that the EU is strongarming US tech to their will"? You can't win here.
- jayd16 2y agoReminds me of app store submissions.
- 9283409232 2y agoMost of you won't read the past the headline but this isn't accurate >The agency said there is an "asymmetry" in which user consent for Apple's own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are "required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications." The press release notes that "while advertising tracking only needs to be refused once, the user must always confirm their consent a second time." They take issue with Apple making it easier for their apps but applying a different standard for third parties. I think this fine is fair.
- bberenberg 2y agoIs Apples third party though? I don’t know, genuinely asking. If no, then first party vs third party having different standards of consent seems reasonable?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 9283409232 2y agoThis is referring to Apple's first party apps so no they aren't third party. I can understand why someone would make that argument but the French regulator argument here is that in the spirit of competition, third-parties should have the same barrier to entry as Apple's first party apps and I can see the argument they are making.
- bberenberg 2y agoI feel like if the apps have their own tracking then yes one click makes sense. If they include third party then multi consent also makes sense. They’re not contradictory points.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoAnd most can't. It's an absurdly high barrier to interest and thus uncompetitive. That's what the ruling is based on. Most of us can't just whip up our own tracking network just to save on one click.
- drivebyhooting 2y agoDo other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark pattern they’ve adopted: * explain and prompt the user for consent * if they acquiesce pop the real modal * otherwise bide your time and try again later The reason for this is because once you receive a rejection in the official modal you are not allowed to ask again.
- ilnavigante 2y agoSpeaking of dark patterns: if you try to initialize your Mac without logging in to your iCloud account, the installation process doesn't ask you to encrypt your drive, so everything is in clear by default...
- gruez 2y ago>Do other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark pattern they’ve adopted: It's specifically recommended by apple. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/privacy#Pre-alert-screens-windows-or-views https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
- drivebyhooting 2y agoIn adtech and social media it is a calculated strategy to maximize user compliance.
- nemothekid 2y agoApple's recommendation (as posted) actually doesn't look like double consent to me - in fact, their recommendation calls out that it should be treated like a consent form (You shouldn't be able to exit the explanation page, only continue). App Publishers have instead used the explanation page as a "soft" consent form, so they can bug you later without being disabled at the system level.
- TheJoeMan 2y agoOr snapchat repeatedly asking for my contacts access knowing it’s denied.
- MR4D 2y agoI’m curious how things like this play into Trumps recent reciprocal tariff threats.
- microtonal 2y agoProbably it will. Vance even threatened to leave NATO if the EU regulates X. But EU countries are not satellite states of the US. At some point we just have to draw a line in the sand and stand by our own values, even if it comes at an expense. It's not as if tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs it will lead to is good for the US economy either. It's all just silly.
- kazen44 2y agoa lot of european nations are also discussing on how to create more inhouse and become digitally sovereign from US tech firms. (the dutch government for instance[0]) 5 or even 10 years ago this would have been unthinkable in dutch politics, even if this has been called out a lot as a risk in tech circles. [0] https://www.dutchitchannel.nl/news/602753/tweede-kamer-neemt-motie-aan-voor-nederlandse-rijkscloud https://www.dutchitchannel.nl/news/602753/tweede-kamer-neemt...
- tick_tock_tick 2y agoEurope has been pushing this politically for over a decade now.... It's just every European initiative to fix it has failed.
- airstrike 2y agocan we start also fining companies for not easily offering "no and never ask again"? the "maybe later" trend needs to die ASAP
- gruez 2y agoNo good deed goes unpunished. Don't protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators for "not doing enough". Protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators because it's "too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue". You see similar levels of cynicism directed at Google. When firefox banned third party cookies, it was almost universally welcomed, but when Chrome does it the cynics come out and say how it's actually some sort dastardly ploy to cement their position in the ad market because third party adtech firms are disproportionately harmed.
- dinkblam 2y ago[flagged]
- ohgr 2y agoIndeed. If they really gave a shit they'd be getting Apple to open up their APIs so we can get data out of Reminders and Notes etc without having to resort to necromancy and hacking... Apple need one of these https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/
- briandear 2y agoAs an Apple user, I don’t want third party apps to be able to have access to that data. Apple has earned my trust, but most third party apps have not. I buy Apple specifically because I want the level of privacy that their platform provides. If third party devs don’t like it, they can ship for Android.
- epolanski 2y agoYou know you're free to just not use a feature, application, or deny consent? Privacy is about making access transparent, not by having customers in tiers. I swear there's a parallel world with lunatics saying they are glad that only XCode can access their file system and processes and they don't want that Vim, VSC, Emacs or IntelliJ crap.
- thebruce87m 2y ago> Benoit Coeure, the head of France's competition authority, "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling," Sounds like a good shakedown to me. Wait until they tweak it then fine them again for getting it “wrong”. I wonder if they even got the chance to change anything before they were fined the first time. And all because the regulator wants users to be advertised to more?
- refulgentis 2y ago> "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling,"...shakedown I wonder if this sheds light: if they said exactly what to do, there's a strong argument that they went too far when business regulators became UI designers. > Wait until they tweak it then fine them again for getting it “wrong” I don't worry too much about it, I used to work at Google, companies and regulatory authorities are in constant contact. Generally, I haven't yet seen a company claim to have addressed a situation then gotten fined again. > And all because the regulator wants users to be advertised to more? I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more?
- thebruce87m 2y ago> I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more? > The Autorité also found that the rules governing the interaction between the different pop-up windows displayed undermined the neutrality of the framework, causing definite economic harm to application publishers and advertising service providers. https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targeted-advertising-autorite-de-la-concurrence-imposes-fine-eu150000000-apple https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targ... “Economic harm to … advertising service providers” says it implicitly.
- refulgentis 2y agoI'm sorry, I'm sure I'm still missing something: my simpleton understanding is taking action to ensure neutrality, implies they want consumers to see more ads?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]