How is Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework alleged to have unfairly disadvantaged UK app developers by requiring them to obtain explicit consent for cross app tracking while exempting Apple’s own advertising activities, what revenue and competitive effects do claimants sa

The claim alleges that Apple used a privacy rule to disadvantage advertising-dependent rival apps while preserving an advantage for its own advertising services. It is newly filed—not decided: the CAT has not yet certified the proposed opt-out class or ruled on liability or damages. 1

• Alleged unequal consent rule: ATT requires third-party apps seeking to link user data across companies’ apps or websites for tracking/targeted advertising to obtain an explicit system-level permission, on top of other consent requirements. Claimants say Apple’s own advertising activity was not subject to an equivalent “double-consent” path, creating unlawful self-preferencing. 1

• Claimed commercial harm: Developers say the rule sharply reduced the data available to measure, target, and attribute advertising, lowering ad yields and the ability to acquire users efficiently. They allege that this depressed their advertising and app revenues, weakened their ability to compete, and diverted advertising value and market power toward Apple’s own ad business; the aggregate damages claim is approximately £2 billion. 13

• Apple’s response: Apple rejects the premise that ATT privileges Apple. Its position is that ATT is a privacy safeguard that gives people control over cross-app and cross-site tracking, applies to all developers—including Apple—and that Apple Search Ads does not perform the kind of cross-company tracking that triggers ATT. 1

• UK procedural status: ATT Collective Action Limited, directed by former CMA antitrust official Ann Pope, filed the proposed collective proceedings at the CAT on 3 September 2026 on behalf of thousands of UK-domiciled iOS app developers. It is intended to proceed on an opt-out basis, but developers are not yet represented in a certified class and Apple has not been found liable. 13

• European context: The UK action arrives amid parallel European competition scrutiny of ATT. Germany’s Federal Cartel Office concluded a long-running investigation after Apple agreed to change its data-consent rules for targeted advertising, including adjustments intended to address the treatment of third-party apps; the changes are to apply across the EU. That regulatory outcome is relevant context, but it does not determine whether the UK claim succeeds. 2