Posted by amarcheschi 12/22/2025
This position commonly ignores that these fines are against these companies position within the market for which they're fined. Meaning that the EU will look at the EU profits and fine relative to those, so they aren't fining the "American" side/profits of the company but rather their "EU" (or Italian in this case) balance sheet.
Then again, it could be seen as a tit for tat move regarding how the US applied its laws extraterritorialy using the dollar as a medium so it's bit harsh to complain about the EU when the US started the whole thing.
This is literally about users having the ability to say no.
Which is ironic, because Apple is more aligned with China than the US:
Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...
The case linked above is an Italian competition authority, so I'm any case, no EU level calculation.
There are various legal bases applicable at EU level (competition, GDPR, ...) so depending on the case which rules are applied varies. But in general these guidelines apply, which explicitly state the basis as follows:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> In determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed, the Commission will take the value of the undertaking's sales of goods or services to which the infringement directly or indirectly relates in the relevant geographic area within the EEA. It will normally take the sales made by the undertaking during the last full business year of its participation in the infringement (hereafter ‘value of sales’).
E.g. most recent EU cases as per their press website note that they applied these guidelines:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
Take your pick: "EU is fining us to finance itself", "EU can't innovate", "I can't believe that EU is fining Apple for [gross misunderstanding of the situation]"
instead of "Apple makes you double-opt-in to sharing your private data with even more advertisers"
The entire advertising industry needs to die and I'll support every fight in pursuit of that goal, but this isn't about that. You don't dismantle an industry by picking a winner and letting them get away with crime.
And yes, there needs to be an EU-wide action over all of those other issues you mentioned too but that has nothing to do with this particular case.
Nope.
This is literally about apps having to ask the user for permission before they can track them.
They broke competition law. The fact that did so in the advertising industry as opposed to any other is irrelevant to this case.
Because Apple Search Ads are offered by the same company that sold you the device, they are legally not a “third party” service. Apple still tracks your installs, your revenue, your retention period, etc, and uses it for Apple Search Ads. Developers can see these metrics for their own apps.
You can’t opt out of this.
There is a strong population on HN that dislikes walled gardens. In my experience there are also plenty of people who disagree. There's also a large population that doesn't like EU tech regulations.
The ratio between different parts of the HN population can change significantly depending of stuff like time of day and headline draw. I don't find it particularly surprising, it isn't like HN is a monolith with internally consistent views across the entire population.
“HN” is lots of different people with lots of different opinions. Different threads select for different commentators. This is not unusual (nor has it been the other thousand times people have commented on the inconsistency of HN).
Not once have I wondered what "HN at large thinks" because it simply doesn't matter. What HN-the-collective thinks about things-in-general just isn't interesting, people's individual thoughts and opinions though, is so much more valuable to read and interesting.
An App Store that restrict us from running the application we want is bad. An App Store that prevents applications from tracking us is good. The former restricts our freedom, the latter restricts the freedom of developers who want to take advantage of our data.
Apple collects data, but they usually keep it for their own use, that's the difference.
Third parties trying to do the same level of collection and also share it with partners is the issue. As such, the platform owner putting constraints on them by applying rules related to privacy shouldn't surprise anyone.
If it does, you're not paying enough attention.
What I said it’s that I don’t find it surprising that people generally dislike the App Store but that they also aren’t against limiting tracking from apps.
EU now makes more money fining US tech than it does taxing its own public internet companies
Wait, so they are punishing Apple because Apple makes it harder to spy on users.
What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can create their own Apple competitor, I guess.
So it's more that Apple's ATT is not compliant with stricter privacy rules, not the opposite...
> The terms were also found to be disproportionate to the achievement of the company’s stated data protection objectives. Since user data are a key input for personalised online advertising, the double consent request that inevitably arises from the ATT policy, as implemented, restricts the collection, linking and use of such data. As a result, such double consent requirement is harmful to developers
Meanwhile ATT blocks access to IDFA (instead of making it a pinky promise), and if apps were honest and were denied ATT it should disable other tracking too. The user has already indicated lack of consent.
I don't know, I just stated what is in the decision: Apple makes 3rd party developers have to go through a process their own apps do not have to, hence creating an imbalance in competition since they are also the owners and controllers of the distribution channel.
The blatantly illegal pop-ups also annoy me a lot, it's clear it's not even malicious compliance but a targeted attack against the regulations to make it seem the law is requiring them to make it as annoying as possible. It seems to work since you got incensed by it.
But Apple doesn't track you in the way ATT prevents, see my other comment; the narrative that they do was pushed by the adtech industry who wants ATT gone, and the courts (French, Italian) just never bothered checking if that was true. Check the decision yourself, they take it for granted and never look into how it works.
> xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store services increased, in terms of higher commissions collected from developers through the platform; likewise, Apple’s advertising division, which is not subject to the same stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased revenues and higher volumes of intermediated ads
> xiii. Therefore, considering that Apple holds an absolute dominant position in the market for the supply to developers of platforms for the online distribution of apps to users of the iOS operating system, the Authority established that Apple’s conduct amounts to an exploitative abuse, in breach of Article 102 TFEU, that started in April 2021 and is still ongoing.
[1] https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf
My guess is that if they want to do that, they'd also need to leave the European market as a whole, as many countries share similar laws and regulations, besides the ones that applied across the entire European Union. And since Europe seems to represent ~25% total revenue in 2025 for Apple, that feels like a highly unlikely choice for them to do, considering they're a public company and have obligations to the shareholders.
They can’t.
If they did, the company (and thus shareholders) would lose money. Shareholders would vote out the board, and the new board would appoint a CEO who would promptly re-enter the Italian market.
This is why corporations get slapped around by regulators everywhere, even though on the surface, the regulators need the company far more than the other way round.
Because now I live in an EU country that had (and has) foreign products and services, typically of US origin, that are not officially available in my home EU country, like for example Xbox GamePass for console. Was same with Nextflix till a few years ago. Same with AMEX cards.
So NO, you can definitely provide your services only to specific EU member states if that's what you wish, they can't force you to sell in all countries.
Basically, Apple can stop selling developer accounts in Italy if they wish. They might run into issues on discrimination grounds, but it would probably be a long fight.
However, they can't prevent an Italian developer from purchasing a developer account from another EU country.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/geo-block...
(Also, I would assume Apple would require a developer to have a legitimate physical business address in a country where they allow developers. I don't imagine this would be an easy transaction.)
The opposite -- Italian law governs because the developer is Italian, even if the developer makes the purchase in Germany -- seems untenable even by European standards.
The point of this law is that it must be an easy transaction. I'm sure there are many companies not following the law properly and getting away with it, but it does seem like Apple will be watched closely to ensure they are doing everything correctly, as a result of their malicious compliance with every previous ruling.
I.e. streaming providers can't stop you from watching Germany exclusive Netflix content when on holidays in Greece using your German Netflix subscription (only free/ad supported services are allowed to do that)
the 'Guardia di Finanza' has a long standing tradition of trying to extort money without regards to actual laws. its not long ago that they told all companies 'if you pay X% more than your tax report says you own then we won't destroy your company'. more recently they went after the Agnelli family trying to extort money without having an actual case.
its not the rule of law, its simply Might makes Right or modern robber knights...
Since you apparently know, how large would a 100M EUR injection into the Italian budget for 2026 actually be, relatively to the other things?
You're saying they're doing this because they need money, but wouldn't changing the tax rates be more effective at this? 100M feels like a piss in the ocean, when you talk about a country's budget, but since you seem to imply Italy is doing this survive, would be nice to know what ratio this fine represents of their budget, which I'm guessing you have in front of you already?
https://www.rgs.mef.gov.it/VERSIONE-I/attivita_istituzionali...
So yeah, whoever talks about these fines as a strategy for fixing the budget knows nothing about the actual budget of a G7 state, these fines are completely immaterial to Italian fiscal policy.
For perspective, that's roughly equivalent to someone with a €50,000 annual income finding €7 on the street and someone claiming they're doing it "to survive."
> In 2024 EU fined US tech companies €3.8B meanwhile public internet tech companies paid only €3.2B in income tax
How is it not a major budget contribution to have fines on American companies bigger than revenue from your entire tech industry?
That is a de facto tax, particularly when they announce these new fines monthly like clockwork.
This report is indicating around 800B in value for the sector (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...)
While other reports have significant higher numbers https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/tech-europe-is-worth-4000-bil...
1. As someone already mentioned, taxes != revenue
2. On top of that, "public internet companies" != "entire tech industry"
3. On top of that, tax evasion and creative accounting by "public internet companies" companies is well known, documented, and is subject to additional fines (not as often or as much as they deserve)
4. On top of that "announce these new fines monthly like clockwork" speaks volumes about the state of the "public internet companies" and there continuous disregard for the law.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379290/government-expen...
Especially on the GDF aspect which is definitely true and impacting both SMBs and big Corps.
When the majority of the GDP is generated by public expenditures, you need to extort money. Which is pretty bad but that’s standard practice.
When someone makes an argument regarding ‘x’, the correct response is a rebuttal to the argument on its merits. Not “why are you defending x?”
I've been assured by people in this thread and others that, for example, if you "don't spy on users", you don't need cookie banners, and yet official EU sites have them.
Yeah, maybe that floats the people's boat wherever you live, but in other countries where people's health and well-being go above corporate interests, it is not common for companies to break the law.
> for example, if you "don't spy on users", you don't need cookie banners, and yet official EU sites have them.
Which is true, and you can understand that yourself by not relying on others, but reading the regulation yourself. It's actually pretty simple, and I think even someone who don't like regulations would be able to get through it if you apply yourself.
And yeah, even official EU sites could avoid it if they'd chose to not use tracking cookies. Not sure what the gotcha is supposed to be here? There is no inconsistency here.
This doesn't belong on HN.
If the issue has existed for years, retroactively jumping straight to fines feels less like regulation and more like the government exploiting its timing advantage.
Is certainly a leverage in Apple’s third-party research.
Google is probably next (Antitrust case(s)). AFAIK the EU is currently probing a case.
And before the Nationalists get mad again: If I sell in the US I'm naturally obliged to follow US rules and regulations. I wouldn't even think twice about this. The same is true in other markets. So for the Single Market: If you play on European turf, you play by European rules.
It strikes me as odd that the land of opportunity has become the land of bigX that must overtake everything and everyone just accepts it. This isn't the spirit of the Americans I know, who actually challenge and see opportunity everywhere. How can you just choose to bend to Apple/Google/Meta etc? I understand they are great companies, but they do really ugly things to push competitors out, to allow scam/phishing, etc.