TL;DR: Italy's competition authority fined Apple €98.6 million ($116 million) for App Tracking Transparency, the feature that asks if you want apps to track you. The regulator called it "disproportionate" and "harmful" to advertisers. Not harmful to users. Harmful to the companies that want to track you without asking. Privacy is now officially anti-competitive in the EU.
What Italy Just Did
On December 22, 2025, Italy's Competition Authority (AGCM) fined Apple €98.6 million for implementing App Tracking Transparency [1].
App Tracking Transparency, or ATT, does one thing: it asks if you want to be tracked. When you open an app, a pop-up appears: "Allow [App] to track your activity across other companies' apps and websites?" You can say yes or no.
That's it. That's the crime. Giving users a choice.
The AGCM determined this feature is "disproportionate" and "harmful" to app developers and advertisers. Apple, they ruled, abused its dominant market position by letting users opt out of surveillance.
The Regulator's Logic
The AGCM's complaint centers on what they call the "double consent" problem. EU residents already see GDPR-related permission requests. Now they see ATT prompts too. Two chances to say no to tracking.
The regulator's position: "Apple could have achieved the same level of privacy protection for its users through means less restrictive of competition."
Translation: You could have protected privacy without actually stopping the tracking.
Their specific objections:
- ATT is "excessively burdensome for developers" because users can opt out
- Apple's own apps don't show tracking prompts (because Apple doesn't track across apps)
- The feature "appears capable of generating financial benefits for Apple"
- Advertisers lost access to user data they previously collected without consent
Notice what's missing: any claim that ATT harms users. The harm is entirely to companies that want to track you.
What App Tracking Transparency Actually Does
Since iOS 14.5 in April 2021, ATT requires apps to ask permission before tracking you across other apps and websites. Before ATT, apps could access your device's advertising identifier (IDFA) automatically. They'd follow you from app to app, building profiles of your behavior [2].
How tracking worked before ATT:
- You download a shopping app
- That app reads your device's advertising ID
- Facebook, Google, and data brokers match that ID across every app on your phone
- They know what you browse, what you buy, where you go
- You never agreed to any of this
What ATT changed:
- Apps must ask permission to access your advertising ID
- You can say "Ask App Not to Track"
- If you say no, apps can't access the identifier
- Cross-app tracking becomes much harder
The result? About 75% of users say no when asked. Turns out people don't want to be tracked. Who knew.
Who Lost Money (And Why They're Mad)
ATT devastated the surveillance advertising industry. When Facebook reported its Q1 2022 earnings, they blamed ATT for a $10 billion revenue hit. Meta's stock dropped 26% in a single day, the largest one-day value loss in stock market history at the time [3].
The companies hurt by ATT:
- Meta (Facebook/Instagram): Lost ability to track iOS users across apps. Revenue tanked.
- Ad networks: Can no longer build cross-app profiles without consent
- Data brokers: Lost their main iOS data source
- App developers: Ad revenue dropped when targeting became less precise
These are the "victims" Italy's regulator is protecting. Not users whose data was harvested without consent. The companies that did the harvesting.
The Pattern: Privacy as Anti-Competitive
Italy isn't alone. France, Germany, and Poland have launched similar regulatory actions against Apple's privacy features. The EU's Digital Markets Act specifically targets "gatekeeper" platforms, and regulators have interpreted privacy features as competitive barriers [4].
The emerging doctrine:
- Large platforms have "special responsibilities" to competitors
- Privacy features that hurt advertisers may be anti-competitive
- User choice can be "disproportionate" if it affects ad revenue
- Companies must find privacy solutions that don't actually stop tracking
This is the logical endpoint of treating advertising as the default internet business model. If tracking is how the economy works, then blocking tracking is economic harm.
Apple's Response
Apple said it will appeal the decision and emphasized ATT's privacy benefits.
But here's the concerning part: Apple previously warned it might discontinue App Tracking Transparency in the EU entirely due to mounting regulatory pressure. If privacy features can be fined as anti-competitive, companies may stop building them.
The message to tech companies is clear: implement privacy features at your own risk. You might get sued for protecting users.
The Deeper Irony
The same week Italy fined Apple for giving users a privacy choice:
- The U.S. activated mandatory facial recognition for all non-citizens at the border
- The FBI revealed it's expanding biometric collection globally
- ICE deployed AI agents to autonomously track immigrants
- Ring rolled out facial recognition to millions of doorbell cameras
Governments are building the most comprehensive surveillance infrastructure in history. But when a company lets users opt out of advertising surveillance, that's the problem that requires a $116 million fine.
The distinction is revealing. State surveillance: expanding. Corporate surveillance: protected. User choice: punishable.
What This Means for You
If you're in the EU:
- ATT still works, for now
- Keep using "Ask App Not to Track" while you can
- Watch for changes to iOS privacy features in EU versions
- Regulatory pressure may force Apple to weaken protections
If you're elsewhere:
- ATT remains unchanged in the US and other markets
- But this sets a concerning precedent
- Privacy features can be legally attacked as anti-competitive
- Other regulators may follow Italy's logic
The Bottom Line
Italy just fined Apple $116 million for implementing a feature that asks: "Do you want to be tracked?"
The crime wasn't collecting data without consent, that's the business model being protected. The crime was giving users the option to say no.
When privacy becomes anti-competitive, the regulatory framework has chosen sides. And it's not your side.
Use ATT while it lasts. Tell apps not to track you. Because apparently, that's worth $116 million in fines. Your privacy must be valuable to someone.