France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What the fine is about

  • Many commenters say the issue isn’t “too much privacy” but “asymmetry”: Apple gets consent for its own tracking with a single system pop-up, while third-party apps end up needing two.
  • The French authority argues this creates extra friction only for third parties and thus distorts competition in advertising and app markets.
  • Some think the fine is fair for enforcing equal treatment; others see it as regulators siding with the ad industry against privacy protections.

Double consent and UX details

  • “Double consent” in practice is described as:
    • iOS’s ATT dialog (“Allow this app to track you…”)
    • plus an in-app consent screen required to comply with GDPR-style rules.
  • Developers often add a “pre-permission” dialog before the system prompt to avoid burning their single OS-level chance if users reject. Apple’s own apps typically skip that warm-up step.
  • Some users report seeing only one prompt and are confused where the “double” comes from; others describe the two-step pattern as a widespread dark pattern, especially in adtech and social media.

Is this Apple’s fault or the law’s fault?

  • One camp: third-party apps are forced into two prompts because regulators don’t let them rely on ATT as legal consent, so the problem is with the legal framework, not Apple.
  • Another camp: once Apple chose to be an ad seller and gatekeeper, it must adapt its framework so others can rely on it too, or at least subject its own apps to the same friction.

Competition and self-preferencing

  • Critics call this anti-competitive: Apple both owns the platform and competes on it (e.g., Notes, Maps, News, App Store ads), while giving itself a smoother consent flow.
  • Defenders argue Apple’s own tracking is more constrained, and it has a better privacy track record than many third-party apps, so identical treatment is not obviously required.

Views on regulation and the fine

  • Some see the decision as petty, extortionate, or driven by ad-industry lobbying.
  • Others frame it as necessary competition policy: rules must be the same for platform owner and everyone else.
  • The €150M fine is widely seen as a slap on the wrist—large enough to get Apple’s attention, not large enough to be existential.