Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has launched antitrust proceedings against three companies within the Apple group. The regulator is examining whether the implementation of the iOS and iPadOS privacy framework — known as App Tracking Transparency (ATT) — may have violated competition rules by favoring Apple’s own advertising services at the expense of external app publishers.
ATT – Privacy Protection or Competitive Advantage?
In 2021, Apple introduced a system-wide mechanism requiring apps to request permission to “track” users, presented as a step toward greater data-processing transparency. However, according to UOKiK, the rules governing ATT raise concerns — particularly regarding how they may affect Apple’s competitors in the mobile advertising market.
“We suspect that the implementation of ATT could have led to unfair restrictions on competition, which is why I have opened proceedings and brought charges against three Apple companies,” said UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny.
The case concerns the following entities:
✔ Apple
✔ Apple Operations International
✔ Apple Distribution International
Regulator and Competitor at the Same Time
Apple operates on two levels within its ecosystem:
- It manufactures hardware and develops operating systems that form a closed environment for applications.
- It provides its own apps and runs advertising operations, collecting user data to display personalized content.
UOKiK notes that Apple both sets the rules for App Store operations and controls access to data — while simultaneously competing with the businesses that depend on that ecosystem. In the regulator’s view, this creates a structural risk of abuse.
“Tracking” for Others, “Personalized Ads” for Apple
The key allegation against ATT concerns how information about data use is presented to users:
🔹 Third-party apps must ask for consent to “track,” a term that carries strong negative connotations.
🔹 Apple’s own apps use a gentler phrase — “personalized ads” — to describe actions that are essentially identical.
The messages also differ in design, button ordering, and wording. According to UOKiK, this approach may increase approval rates for Apple while reducing acceptance for competing apps.
“The effect is the same: both Apple and other publishers profile users to display ads tailored to their behavior and interests,” Chróstny noted.
Poland’s data-protection authority (UODO) confirmed that ATT does not follow from data-protection regulations and is not legally required.
How This Might Look in Practice
UOKiK presents the following example:
- A user buys a new iPad.
- During setup, she grants Apple permission to personalize ads — a single consent that applies across the entire ecosystem.
- She later downloads third-party apps, which request permission to “track” her — and she declines.
- As a result, Apple can collect data and deliver personalized ads, while other publishers cannot — even though the underlying activities are technically the same.
Possible Market Impact
The regulator argues that differentiating how consent is obtained may lead to:
- reduced access to user data for external publishers,
- lower effectiveness of personalized advertising for competitors,
- decreased value of ad inventory in third-party apps,
- weaker bargaining power for app developers in negotiations with advertisers.
Such practices could strengthen Apple’s position in the mobile advertising market and constitute an abuse of dominance. Under Polish law, the regulator may impose a fine of up to 10% of global turnover.
Apple Under Scrutiny Abroad as Well
The ATT framework has also drawn attention from regulators in:
- Germany,
- Italy,
- Romania.
In March 2025, the French competition authority fined Apple €150 million for practices deemed anti-competitive.
Source: CEO.com.pl (UOKiK: Allegations Against Apple Over Potential Restriction of Competition)
