After the €150 million fine, Apple’s ATT faces its hardest questions yet

What follows is a closer look at the questions this decision surfaces — not just for Apple but for the entire advertising ecosystem built on the promise (and pretense) of privacy.

What happens next won’t be swift

Talk of ATT being rolled back entirely is premature. The regulator made clear it’s not condemning ATT itself — it’s the self-serving rollout that crossed the line. Apple, the ruling said, gave itself preferential treatment under the guise of protecting users. Or, as competition law phrases it: abuse of dominance.

Now the company has to stop doing that. But when it actually will is anyone’s guess. Apple is unlikely to move until other parallel investigations in Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania run their course.

When those decisions go down, the consequences won’t be confined to Apple. France’s ruling injects real friction into a privacy movement that increasingly serves the platforms more than the public. And if Apple can’t hide behind the rhetoric of user protection, others — Google included — may think twice before using privacy as a Trojan horse for market power.

“Whilst we welcome the French competition authority’s ruling, it merely confirms what we’ve known all along: Apple weaponized privacy concerns to gain competitive advantage,” said Will Harmer, chief product officer at ad tech vendor Utiq. “There’s simply no justification for the double standard Apple created — strict consent requirements for third parties whilst using preferential language for their own tracking. Yet we must remember that even with consent, Apple’s IDFAs, like browser cookies, provide consumers with minimal protection against excessive data collection. True privacy requires both fair competition and stronger data protections.”

Apple’s remaining regulatory challenges in Europe

Aside from the ruling earlier this week, as of early 2025, Apple faces mounting regulatory challenges in the EU and U.K. over ATT as well as its wider mobile ecosystem.

In March 2025, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO) won a court case affirming its designation of Apple as a company with “paramount cross-market significance for competition.” This classification allows German authorities to impose proactive restrictions on Apple’s conduct under national competition laws.

The FCO has specifically scrutinized Apple’s handling of user tracking and third-party app access to data. The court’s decision opens the door to further regulatory actions, including mandated interoperability or restrictions on self-preferencing.

Apple is facing antitrust scrutiny and investigations in the U.K., primarily concerning its mobile ecosystem, including the App Store, operating system and browsers. The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority is investigating whether Apple holds “strategic market status.”

More broadly, the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which has been in effect since November 2022, seeks to ensure fair competition within the digital sector by imposing obligations on “gatekeeper” companies, a.k.a. Big Tech. This means Apple’s DMA obligations include:

• Permit alternative app stores on iOS devices
• Allow users to set third-party apps as defaults for functions, such as web browsing
• Facilitate interoperability between its services and those of third parties

Under DMA rules, Apple must allow app sideloading and alternative app stores, provide options for default third-party apps, and ensure data interoperability. Non-compliance risks fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover. As ATT is seen to affect data portability and competition, the DMA could compel Apple to modify or broaden access to its tracking consent mechanisms.

Similar regulatory challenges in the U.S.?

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Apple is facing charges from the Justice Department and several states including a March 2024 lawsuit accusing the company of monopolizing the smartphone market. According to U.S. regulators, Apple enforces restrictive policies on app distribution, in-app payments and interoperability with rival services.

However, as of the start of 2025, its ATT framework had not been the subject of significant regulatory challenges in its domestic market, with many there championing its privacy-preserving measures.

But it’s noteworthy that the profile of the companies on which ATT had a substantial impact, such as Meta, and whether the current political climate might lead to a less zealous approach to privacy from the iPhone manufacturer.

Given the potential outcome of applying ATT may include significant fines, required changes to privacy settings and structural shifts in how Apple engages with third-party developers (both across the EU and potentially in the U.S.), some wonder if a switch in policy may appear soon.

Google’s own foray into the murky waters of user consent

Currently, it’s hard to say what impact the ruling against Apple will have on Google. There’s just not enough to go on when it comes to its promised feature to let Chrome users decide whether they want to be tracked by third-party cookies. Nearly a year on since the move was announced, basic questions remain unanswered: will users need to opt-in? Or out? Or will the whole thing dissolve into the browser’s background, another checkbox most will never see?

For now, all anyone can do is speculate. The current sense is that if Google decides to mirror Apple’s approach closely then it could attract the ire of regulators again.

“Google is in a different position to Apple in so far as it’s working with a regulator [the U.K’s Competition and Markets Authority] on its own plan to ask people for consent on whether or not they want to be tracked,” said Davide Rosamilia, vp of product at alternative identity provider ID5. “So its hard to say the ruling will have an impact on whatever Google has planned for third-party cookies. What this might impact is Android’s Privacy Sandbox.”

A courtroom reckoning

The €150 million fine won’t undo Apple’s privacy play, but it does open the door to something potentially more destabilizing: civil lawsuits from those in the ad industry who say they were collateral damage in the rollout.

Publishers and ad tech vendors, many of whom saw revenues crater in the wake of ATT, have long alleged that Apple’s framework didn’t just kneecap third-party tracking, it kneecapped competition. France’s regulator just gave them ammunition. By concluding that Apple’s privacy changes were “neither necessary nor “proportionate” and created an unfair playing field, the decision could embolden aggrieved parties to seek compensation through the courts.

So far, no formal suits have been filed. But sources in the legal and ad tech communities say its no longer a fringe possibility. If regulators have cracked open the door, don’t be surprised if litigators push it wide open.