European Ad Groups Say Thanks, but 'We Don't Need Apple to Police the Internet'

The issue of taming Big Tech has loomed large over the national agenda for years, and recently escalated to U.S. antitrust authorities filing suit against Google over its dominance of the search market. European authorities are doing likewise, with trade bodies in France filing a complaint against Apple with competition authorities that claims its planned privacy measures in iOS 14 will irrevocably harm the mobile ad industry. Last month, the French chapters of the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Mobile Marketing Association led a complaint filed with the Autorité de la Concurrence (ADLC) over Apple's controversial plan to obstruct app developers from sharing mobile identifiers, known as IDFA, without specific user opt-in. Apple first unveiled the plans, which many feared would hamstring the $45 billion mobile advertising economy, in June as part of its iOS 14 rollout, which caught some of the industry's largest names, including Facebook, unaware. Stay of execution After much back and forth, Apple granted the in-app mobile advertising business a reprieve and postponed the rollout of restrictions that would inhibit the targeting and measurement of in-app ads on iPhones. In typical fashion, however, Apple has clarified little about its plans, with the exact launch date of IDFA restrictions unknown, only stating that it would happen in "early 2021." Meanwhile, the limited dialog between the iPhone manufacturer and trade bodies involved IAB Europe imploring Apple to embrace its Transparency Consent Framework—an initiative to ensure the online ad industry adheres to requirements under the EU's General Data Protection Regulations. Typically, Apple's disclosures over its rules concerning data collection in the iOS ecosystem are a unilateral affair, with the iPhone maker offering limited guidance for its AppTrackingTransparency Framework. Concerns over abuse of 'distribution monopoly' In short, the France-based trade bodies assert that Apple's privacy justifications just don't add up, especially since its App Store amounts to a "distribution monopoly" of iOS apps. The complainants assert that Apple's prescribed wording over how app developers communicate their data collection and sharing activities are specifically designed to inhibit user opt-in. Additionally, they assert that Apple's iOS 14 terms and conditions amount to unfair trading conditions as the preexisting IAB Transparency Consent Framework already provides privacy requirements legislated by GDPR. User opt-in rate is expected to be very low due to the intimidating language in the pop-up box. "Once implemented, Apple’s conduct is likely to constitute an abuse of its dominant position in breach of EU and French competition law, as it will have both exploitative and exclusionary effects," reads the complaint. In a briefing with journalists on the legal arguments behind the complaint, Damien Geradin, a partner at France-based competition law firm Geradin Partners, said, "We don't need Apple to police the internet!" He went on to reference the consumer protection measures laid out by Europe's elected bodies. "Democratic choices have been made," added Geradin. "EU vendors have developed consent management platforms which already provide iOS users with choice and control over the collection and processing of their data." The parties have requested the ADLC impose "interim measures," including an order that would bar Apple from implementing its data-sharing consent box. In addition, the parties are also seeking a directive compelling Apple to engage in a discourse with the mobile advertising industry toward an acceptable solution. The ADLC has confirmed it has received the measures and is examining the claims. Guess what? When an app decides to move to a subscription-based model... Apple will take a 30% commission.–Damien Geradin, attorney, Geradin Partners Geradin also characterized Apple's terms and conditions under iOS 14 as an attempt to strong-arm app developers into abandoning their preexisting ad-funded business models, a ploy that plays into its own interests. "There is also a risk that ad-funded apps may have to shift to a user payment model," he said. "And guess what? When an app decides to move to a subscription-based model... Apple will take a 30% commission." His comments evoke a separate antitrust investigation into Apple's App Store rules from the European Commission dating back to June this year, which alleges the U.S. behemoth was a "gatekeeper" of mobile apps, ebooks, online music and other streaming services. "We need to ensure that Apple's rules do not distort competition in markets where Apple is competing with other app developers," said Margrethe Vestager, evp in charge of competition policy, at the time. European authorities' investigations into Apple's pricing policies echo Fortnite publisher Epic Games' legal battles with the App Store earlier in the year. This struggle has seemingly galvanized the developer community to join forces and form the Coalition for App Fairness, with European publisher Schibsted the latest to join their ranks. Industry efforts will require government muscle Apple has yet to respond publicly to the recent complaints filed in France, but the company is at pains to highlight how its planned IDFA restrictions in iOS 14 are geared toward helping users make informed choices, and that this in no way amounts to an attempt to kill in-app mobile advertising. This leaves sources to conclude that lobbying government(s) to level the playing field with Big Tech players is the only recourse for the media industry when it comes to reining in the "gatekeepers" with dominant positions of app distribution or, in the case of Google, access to the web through a browser. Even then, these tactics may not be effective. One legal source, who requested anonymity due to their clients' preference, told Adweek, "These big platforms are usually unwilling to participate when it's not on their timelines and not on their terms. "And with Apple, you have a very big platform coming out with a very big privacy [advocacy] statement. To go back on that would be a very big challenge from a PR perspective."