Targeted advertising and abuse of a dominant position: what impact does the record fine imposed on Apple have?

Recent legal developments have been marked by a major decision of the French Competition Authority, fining Apple a record EUR 150 million for abuse of a dominant position in the mobile application distribution sector. This ruling, handed down on 28 March 2025, raises significant questions regarding user consent and data protection, particularly in connection with the controversial App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework. Indeed, this case illustrates the growing tensions between the need to protect users' privacy, in compliance with GDPR rules, and the obligations of application developers, who find themselves constrained by rules they consider excessive and detrimental to their business. Understanding the implications of this fine for mobile application development, the way targeted advertising is perceived, and the competitive dynamics is therefore essential to grasp the future of this sector. In this article, we will explore the various facets of this decision, examining in greater detail the implications of the ATT framework for personal data, its impact on competition, and the repercussions on the mobile application ecosystem.

If you wish to engage a competition law lawyer, contact me!

1. What are the implications of the App Tracking Transparency framework for personal data?

On 28 March 2025, the French Competition Authority imposed a EUR 150 million fine on Apple for abuse of a dominant position, a case that brought to light the challenges associated with personal data protection. At the heart of this issue lies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, introduced by Apple in June 2020 to strengthen the privacy of iOS and iPadOS users. This framework requires applications to obtain users' explicit consent before being able to collect and share their personal data.

This collection of consent, in compliance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, commonly known as the GDPR, is crucial to ensure transparency in the processing of personal data. Article 4(11) of the GDPR defines consent as « any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes », which underscores the importance of properly informing users. Questions relating to GDPR compliance often require the involvement of a lawyer specialising in CNIL matters. However, Apple's implementation of an additional interface to seek this consent was deemed redundant by many players in the advertising market, who argue that it complicates the user journey and adds to obligations that are already sufficient under the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive.

As a result, application developers find themselves in a delicate situation, because although they must comply with the GDPR, the ATT appears to impose additional conditions that work against them. The fact that users are faced with multiple requests for the same consent may lead to confusion, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the consent collection process. This complexity will harm not only users, but also jeopardises small businesses, which lack the resources needed to navigate these growing administrative requirements.

This question of the implications of the ATT framework is not limited solely to a battle over consent. Indeed, the way Apple designed the ATT also raises concerns regarding an asymmetry of treatment between the various stakeholders. The comparison between the obligations of third-party application publishers and those of Apple reveals a competition issue, which could have significant repercussions on the entire mobile application ecosystem.

The remainder of this article will be devoted to an in-depth analysis of how the ATT framework affects competition in the online advertising sector.

Let's discuss your needs for 15 minutes!

2. How does the ATT framework affect competition in the online advertising sector?

The App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework has profound implications for the competitive dynamics in the online advertising sector. By imposing a strict framework around user consent, Apple changes the way personal data can be collected and used by application developers. Indeed, with the implementation of the ATT, applications must now obtain explicit consent before being able to access user data, which considerably alters the advertising landscape.

This consent requirement not only has a direct impact on data collection, but also raises major challenges for market players. Small businesses, in particular, risk finding themselves at a disadvantage compared to large companies, which can more easily adapt to this new regulation. While Apple enjoys a dominant position thanks to its broad iOS user base, third-party applications, in their quest for visibility, must now compete not only on the quality of their products, but also on their ability to navigate this new, complex user journey.

Moreover, a study commissioned by the French Competition Authority revealed that 60% of users choose to refuse tracking because of Apple's request, which significantly reduces the targeted advertising opportunities for applications that depend on targeted advertising. This refusal of consent is not merely a loss for advertisers, but also reinforces Apple's position on the market, thereby consolidating its dominance in the sector. In other words, the rules of the game established by the ATT actually favour Apple to the detriment of other players, which raises serious questions about the competitive balance.

Beyond the concerns relating to competition, the new advertising ecosystem brought about by the ATT framework also raises questions regarding the economic viability of a large number of applications, particularly those that rely primarily on advertising-based monetisation. By reducing targeting options and increasing user acquisition costs, the ATT could ultimately harm innovation in the mobile application sector.

This disruption of the sector merely sets in motion a broader debate on the ethics of targeted advertising and the future of technology companies in terms of data protection. In the next section, we will examine the repercussions of this decision on the mobile application ecosystem and the future of competition in this field.

I want reliable legal documents!

3. What are the repercussions of this decision on the mobile application ecosystem?

The French Competition Authority's decision imposing a record fine on Apple for abuse of a dominant position has significant repercussions on the mobile application ecosystem. At the heart of this case lies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, the application of which was deemed abusive on account of its impact on competition and on application developers. Indeed, while the stated objective of the ATT is to protect users' personal data, the manner of its implementation has created imbalances on the market.

Small businesses, often dependent on targeted advertising for their business model, find themselves disadvantaged by the ATT requirements. The need to collect users' consent twice for the same advertising tracking has led to a proliferation of consent pop-ups, thereby complicating the user journey. For example, studies show that 60% of users choose to refuse tracking following the interruption caused by this consent request, thereby reducing the targeting opportunities for small applications.

This situation gives rise to a worrying reality: the risk of single-sourcing in the mobile application sector, where giants such as Apple take a disproportionate share of advertising revenue. It also raises questions about data protection, as application publishers must then seek alternative solutions to comply with regulatory requirements while attempting to ensure the visibility and profitability of their products.

Furthermore, Apple's position, reinforced by the ATT effect, could have the effect of stifling innovation, limiting the opportunities for new applications to emerge on the market. This phenomenon could also have repercussions on the quality of the user experience, as small businesses struggle to compete with the major players in the sector. This dynamic echoes a broader concern regarding the future of application development and its potential to generate revenue in an altered competitive environment.

It is therefore essential to consider the future of regulation concerning targeted advertising and data protection, in order to find a balance that protects consumers while allowing healthy competition in the mobile application ecosystem.