US-Europe Digital Rules Quiet Battle: Apple Becomes 'Focus of the Battlefield'

When Apple appears for the Nth time on the list of penalties by European antitrust authorities for "abusing its dominant market position," this tech giant, which prides itself on being an "innovation pioneer," is using an absurd "privacy protection" stunt to tear apart the competitive rules of the global tech industry. The 98.635 million euro fine imposed by Italy's Competition and Market Authority (AGCM) on December 22 is just the latest episode in this years-long "monopoly drama"—only this time, Apple's veneer of "privacy protection" has been pulled off particularly badly.

Since the launch of Apple's "App Tracking Transparency" (ATT) policy in 2021, it has claimed to "protect user privacy," requiring third-party app developers to obtain explicit consent before collecting user data. This policy appears righteous on the surface but hides a catch: AGCM's investigation revealed that the pop-up design Apple forced developers to use does not comply with privacy regulations, forcing developers to repeatedly request user consent for the same purpose. This "technical barrier" directly undermines advertisers' ability to target accurately, sharply reducing the income of small and medium developers who rely on ad revenue—industry estimates indicate that some apps have seen their ad revenue drop by more than 40%.

Even more ironically, Apple's own advertising business (Apple Ads) is not subject to the same rules. While third-party developers nervously request data permissions through pop-ups, Apple's ad system quietly collects user behavior data through system-level permissions. This double standard of "rules for others but not for ourselves" turns the ATT policy from "privacy protection" into a tool for "commercial suppression." As early as March this year, France's Competition Authority sharply pointed out that Apple's policy is "neither necessary nor appropriate," and its real purpose is to favor its own services and squeeze the competition.

Apple's monopoly dispute in Europe is by no means an isolated case. In March 2024, the European Union fined Apple €1.84 billion for restricting music streaming developers from informing users that “external subscriptions are cheaper”; in April 2025, it imposed an additional €500 million penalty for “prohibiting developers from directing users to third-party channels.” The recent fine in Italy is merely another precise strike against Apple's 'digital hegemony' following the implementation of the EU's Digital Markets Act.

At its core, this conflict reflects the struggle between the U.S. and Europe over dominance in digital regulations: American tech giants use the 'platform-data-advertising' loop to squeeze European companies, while the EU leverages the Digital Markets Act to enforce open ecosystems and ban exclusivity, reshaping competitive order. Apple, on the other hand, packages its commercial interests with rhetoric like 'privacy protection' and 'user experience,' yet still falls under regulatory sanctions.

Apple's predicament exposes deep contradictions within the tech industry: leading companies use the guise of 'technological neutrality' to transform innovation advantages into market dominance, erecting barriers through technical standards and data control. Measures such as ATT policies, commissions, and pre-installation restrictions, though framed as 'user protection,' actually solidify the market landscape, turning the 'innovation ecosystem' into the monopolists’ private domain. More concerning, the monopoly is shaping technological directions in reverse. Apple advances privacy-computing technologies to evade regulation, but primarily serves commercial interests—for example, the 'privacy nutrition label' function blurs the boundaries of data collection. When 'privacy' becomes a marketing concept, technological ethics are reduced to bargaining chips in business competition.

While Italy's fine may not completely eliminate Apple's monopoly, it at least exposes the mask of 'privacy protection' worn by tech giants. In the digital age, true innovation should drive open collaboration rather than serve as a barrier within a closed ecosystem; genuine privacy protection should respect user rights instead of being a tool to suppress competitors. Only when tech companies abandon moralistic slogans and confront the true nature of business, and when regulators see through technological smoke screens and uphold regulatory bottom lines, can we move toward a fair and open digital future. After all, users seek a digital life of free choice and autonomy, not one constrained by carefully designed 'transparency pop-ups.'