Tech and AI
Four year competition inquiry ends with binding commitments to redesign the tracking consent prompt shown to third party apps
By Staff Writer | 18 August 2026
Germany's competition authority has accepted commitments from Apple over the consent requests its framework imposes on other app publishers but not on itself. Discouraging symbols and wording go, the design must be neutral, and publishers may combine the prompt with the consent they already have to obtain. The commitments run for seven years under an independent monitoring trustee.
A proceeding opened in June 2022 was concluded on 17 August 2026, and the shape of the finding is worth more than the outcome. The Bundeskartellamt did not hold that a dominant platform may not raise privacy protection above the legal floor. It held that when it does so inside its own ecosystem, the rules it writes may not treat its own products better than everyone else's.
The framework at issue requires third party app publishers, for certain kinds of cross-company data use, to obtain consent twice: once under data protection law, and again through a prompt whose wording Apple dictates. Apple's own advertising business is outside those rules and uses its own prompt.
It is key that personal data and privacy are protected effectively when using apps. Apple is allowed to provide for a level of protection for its users that exceeds the minimum legal requirements. However, if Apple sets up additional rules within its ecosystem for the use of data, these rules must, under Germany's special abuse provision for large digital companies, not treat its own offerings better than those of its competitors.
Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt
The finding, in the authority's own terms
The wording, design and selection options of the request used for Apple's own offerings had the potential to encourage consent, whereas they had the potential to discourage it for third party apps, and the gap exceeded what differences in the type of data processing could justify.
There was a second objection alongside the first. Third party apps in some cases had to ask again even where the user had already given consent that satisfied data protection law, which is the sort of repetition that produces refusal by fatigue rather than by choice.
The commercial asymmetry underneath is set out plainly in the release. Many apps are funded by advertising, and personalised advertising pays better. Apps funded instead by purchases and subscriptions generally pay a commission to the platform, while the platform generally takes no share of advertising revenue. The authority did not need to allege intent; it only had to note where the incentive points.
What changes
Under the binding commitments the consent prompts for Apple's own offerings and for third party apps must be aligned much more closely. Possibly discouraging symbols and wording are removed from the prompt Apple prescribes for others, and the design must be neutral in content, wording and layout. Publishers and content providers gain room to explain to users what personalised advertising means for their offering and their business model.
The consent architecture is also to be simplified. Publishers will be freer to combine the prompt Apple requires with the consents required under data protection law, or to connect them in a way that is clear to the user. The authority notes the changes may also benefit advertisers and technical service providers.
It is expressly not our aim to help achieve the highest possible levels of consent to personalised advertising. We want to ensure that users can make a free and informed decision. Users who do not wish to allow their data to be used for personalised advertising must be able to make an equally free and informed decision as users who intend to consent to such data use.
Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt
The enforcement route, and what happens next
The proceeding rested on Section 19a of the German Competition Act and on the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Section 19a works in two steps: a decision that a company is of paramount cross-market importance for competition, then a power to prohibit particular conduct. Apple was designated in April 2023 and the Federal Court of Justice confirmed that designation in March 2025.
Apple has four months from service of the decision to implement the changes in its operating systems, and will test them with app publishers first. The commitments apply for seven years and an independent monitoring trustee will oversee them. Apple maintains its rules were lawful and offered the commitments without accepting the objection.
Two other European proceedings on the same framework ended in fines last year: 150 million euros in France and 98.6 million euros in Italy. Germany has taken the other road, leaving the framework in place and rewriting how it must look. The authority says its solution forms part of a European dialogue and may affect the design of the framework in other member states.