Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
FollowingApple (NASDAQ: AAPL) has been accused of adopting stricter standards than itself on third-party developers. The charge stems from a £ 2 billion (US$2.7 billion) class action lawsuit filed in the London Competition Court of Appeal on Thursday.
British app developers say Apple's "app tracking transparency" rule is unfair because developers rely on advertising revenue to maintain free apps, and the rule quietly diverts advertising revenue to Apple by setting a five-year deadline for authorization prompts.
Core of the case: Double consent accusation
The lawsuit was filed by ATT Collective Action Co., Ltd. The core argument is that Apple requires third-party developers to abide by the two-step consent rule before tracking users across apps and websites, while Apple's own advertising and data collection activities are not subject to this restriction.
Third-party applications need to obtain user licenses twice, while Apple's internal services do not have to bear such restrictions. Developers who rely on advertising revenue ultimately need to spend more to acquire new users, while advertising value continues to decline.
The "Application Tracking Transparency" feature will be launched in April 2021. When a user opens the app, a prompt will pop up immediately asking whether to allow advertisers to track. If the user refuses, the developer will not be able to use the user's data for targeted advertising.
Initiators of litigation and their claims
The lawsuit was led by Ann Pope, who was the head of antitrust at the UK Competition and Markets Authority-the agency's subsidiary court that heard the case, which constituted a noteworthy turning point in the case.
Pope believes that this battle is not about privacy, but fairness. "Privacy is an important protection for consumers, but it should be implemented fairly to ensure that businesses of all sizes can compete on a level playing field," she said. She further pointed out that Apple's rules "cause very serious damage to businesses that rely on Apple as a gatekeeper."
Apple has not responded to this and has always maintained its view that its apps are exempt from tracking reminders because they do not collect the data referred to in the reminder. Apple believes that this just ensures a fair competitive environment.
Fines and rectification orders before London lawsuit
The UK lawsuit comes at a time when Apple is facing years of regulatory issues in Europe. Italy fined Apple 98.6 million euros for ATT issues in December 2025 and asked it to make corrections; France fined Apple 150 million euros in April 2025, but did not require rectification.
Germany also recently took action against Apple. Its competition regulator found that the design suggested by ATT was beneficial to Apple rather than to competitors, resulting in Apple obtaining more user consent, so it required Apple to modify the design. Apple has agreed to eight changes to its EU policy. Poland and Romania have also initiated relevant reviews.
Position of the case in the London Court of Large Technology Company Cases
The London Competition Court of Appeal has become a well-known venue for litigation against technology giants. Currently, the court is hearing another $4.1 billion iCloud claim against Apple, with a hearing scheduled to be held at the end of 2028. This timetable suggests that the ATT case may also take longer.
It is unknown how the claimant arrived at the amount of US$2.7 billion, nor does it mean that Apple will definitely be fined that amount.
