According to 9to5Mac, Germany’s Bundeskartellamt, or Federal Cartel Office, is now evaluating proposed changes from Apple aimed at settling antitrust concerns over its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework. This follows a three-year investigation that concluded earlier this year with the preliminary finding that Apple applies ATT’s strict rules to third-party apps but not to its own services. In response, Apple has agreed to adjust the wording, content, and visual design of its ATT consent prompts to be more neutral and to largely align them for both its own apps and those from third-party developers. The company also proposed simplifying the process for developers to obtain user consent for data processing. The German regulator is now seeking feedback from publishers, media groups, and other regulators before making a final decision on whether these changes adequately address the competition issues.
The Core Argument
Here’s the thing: Germany’s case isn’t really about privacy. It’s about fairness in the market. The Bundeskartellamt’s view is simple—if the rule is “ask the user for permission to track,” then that rule must apply equally to everyone, including Apple. Apple’s defense, which they’ve stated clearly, is that they hold themselves to an even higher standard. They point to features like the explicit opt-out for personalized ads and architectural decisions that prevent cross-service data linking.
But let’s be real. That’s a hard sell for a regulator whose job is to police market power, not judge privacy engineering. The optics are terrible: Apple built a gate, charges a toll (the 30% commission), and gets to decide who has to stop and ask for directions. Even if their own garden is pristine, the suspicion that they’re using privacy as a competitive shield is inevitable. And Apple’s own comment about “intense lobbying” forcing a withdrawal of ATT just makes the whole arena feel more like a corporate knife-fight than a principled stand for user rights.
What’s Actually Changing?
So what are these proposed fixes? Basically, Apple is tweaking the sign on the gate. The prompts will become more “neutral” in wording and design, and they’ll look more similar whether they’re from Apple or from, say, a social media app. They’re also promising to simplify the back-end process for developers. This is classic regulatory appeasement—change the presentation, align the optics, but keep the fundamental structure intact.
The big question is, will it work? Will making the prompts look the same truly level the playing field when Apple still controls the operating system, the App Store, and a suite of pre-installed apps that don’t even go through the store? I’m skeptical. It feels like treating a symptom. The underlying diagnosis from Germany is about structural advantage, not UI design. For industries that rely on targeted advertising, like many publishers and media groups now giving feedback, these changes might feel like a band-aid on a bullet wound.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just a German story. It’s a blueprint. If Germany secures these concessions and declares victory, other antitrust bodies in Europe and beyond will take note. It creates a precedent that Apple’s privacy features are subject to competition law scrutiny. That’s a huge shift. For years, Apple has wielded privacy as an unimpeachable moral argument. Now, it’s being framed as a potential tool for anti-competitive behavior.
And honestly, that’s a necessary conversation to have. Can a company with immense market power use a genuinely good thing—like user privacy—to entrench its position? It’s a messy, complicated question with no easy answer. But by forcing Apple to the table, Germany is ensuring that answer isn’t written solely in Cupertino. The outcome here will ripple far beyond a consent prompt. It could redefine the rules of engagement for every platform that tries to wear both the referee and player jersey.
