Italy’s antitrust authority has fined Apple €98.6 million, concluding that the company’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework unfairly restricted competition within the App Store advertising ecosystem.

While the regulator did not challenge the legitimacy of Apple’s privacy goals, it ruled that the implementation of ATT imposed disproportionate compliance burdens on third-party developers. Apple has rejected the findings and confirmed it will appeal.

Introduced in 2021, App Tracking Transparency fundamentally changed how iOS and iPadOS applications collect data for advertising.

Under ATT, apps must request explicit user consent before tracking activity across other apps and websites. The move was widely praised by privacy advocates but criticized by advertising platforms and app developers that rely on targeted ads to fund free services.

European regulators have increasingly scrutinized how platform-level privacy controls interact with competition law, especially when enforced by companies that operate dominant app marketplaces.

Italy’s competition authority determined that Apple abused its dominant market position by requiring third-party developers to obtain user consent twice to comply with European privacy regulations.

According to the ruling, Apple’s system forces developers to navigate both Apple’s ATT prompt and additional consent mechanisms required under EU data protection law.

The authority concluded that this “double consent” structure disproportionately harmed advertising-based business models without being strictly necessary to protect user privacy.

App Tracking Transparency operates at the operating system level, intercepting data access requests tied to cross-app and cross-site tracking.

Apple requires developers to display a standardized system prompt asking users whether tracking is permitted. If users decline, identifiers such as the Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) become inaccessible.

Regulators argued that, in Europe, developers must then implement separate consent flows to meet GDPR obligations—creating friction that does not apply equally across the ecosystem.

The ruling has direct implications for app developers, advertisers, and ad-tech intermediaries that depend on behavioral targeting.

Smaller developers are particularly affected, as reduced advertising efficiency can undermine free or low-cost app models.

For Apple, the fine reinforces growing regulatory pressure across Europe related to platform governance, competition, and privacy design choices.

This case highlights the tension between privacy-by-design principles and competition law in digital markets.

Even well-intentioned privacy controls can trigger regulatory action if their implementation creates asymmetric disadvantages for third parties.

As regulators increasingly evaluate how privacy features shape market dynamics, platform providers may be required to justify not only what protections exist, but how they are enforced.

Apple has stated that the ruling prioritizes the interests of ad-tech firms over user privacy, emphasizing that ATT applies equally to Apple and third-party developers.

The company also noted that the feature has been widely adopted by users and supported by privacy advocates.

Similar conclusions reached earlier this year by France’s antitrust authority suggest a broader European consensus forming around ATT’s competitive impact rather than its privacy intent.