Can a company controlling access to a digital platform impose stricter rules on its competitors than on its own services?
Can the owner of a digital platform set the rules for other businesses operating on it while competing with those same businesses? This question lies at the heart of a case involving Apple and Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK). The issue concerns the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy, the way consent is requested from users and the potential impact of those rules on the mobile advertising market.
One platform, two roles
Apple controls the ecosystem through which apps reach iPhone and iPad users. At the same time, it offers its own apps and advertising services. Independent app publishers therefore have to comply with rules set by a company that may also be their competitor. Competition-law concerns arise when the platform’s rules are applied in a manner that could favour the platform operator over businesses depending on access to it.
Why did UOKiK examine App Tracking Transparency?
Under ATT, Apple treated the combination of user data obtained from apps belonging to different companies as “tracking”. Third-party developers were required to display an additional consent prompt. By contrast, the combination of data collected directly by one company, including Apple itself, was not characterised in the same way.
The difference was reflected in messages shown to users. An independent app might seek consent for “tracking”, whereas Apple sought permission for “personalised advertising”. The wording, appearance and arrangement of the buttons differed. UOKiK considered that these distinctions could discourage users from authorising data use by independent publishers and could give Apple a competitive advantage in advertising services. The authority also raised concerns about the effect of complicated data-access rules on publishers’ ability to finance their apps through personalised advertising.
The decision of 20 October 2026
In decision DOK-7/2026, announced on 20 October 2026, the President of UOKiK accepted commitments offered by Apple-related companies to change the contested practices. The proceedings concerned Apple, Apple Distribution International and Apple Operations International. The outcome is a commitment decision: it imposes obligations to implement the agreed measures and should not be presented as a final finding that Apple committed an infringement of competition law.
What will change for iPhone and iPad users?
Apple must introduce more neutral consent messages relating to data use, both in its own services and in third-party apps. The messages are to avoid graphic devices or wording capable of steering users towards a particular choice; according to UOKiK, the term “tracking” will no longer appear in those prompts. Users in Poland should receive clearer information about how their data will be used, so that they can make an informed decision without being encouraged or discouraged by the design of the message.
The changes are intended for users whose Apple account has a Polish billing address and whose device location is designated as Poland, under the conditions described by the authority.
New protections for independent developers
App publishers will be permitted to include a link to a website or an additional information screen explaining data processing in greater detail. Apple will not be entitled to interfere with the content of those explanations. It must also communicate the new ATT rules to publishers through its documentation and relevant terms.
The commitments provide for an independent liaison officer, who will accept enquiries and complaints from developers in Polish or English. Matters will then be referred to an independent monitoring trustee tasked with examining complaints relating to the policy. These arrangements should give developers a clearer route for raising concerns about how the platform’s rules operate in practice.
When must Apple implement the commitments?
According to UOKiK, the changes must be implemented within two months after the decision becomes final. Apple must provide documents and information demonstrating implementation and is subject to annual reporting duties. The two-month period therefore runs from the decision’s finality, not automatically from the date of the press announcement.
What does the case mean for the digital market?
The dispute illustrates a central challenge in digital competition law: a company may legitimately protect users’ privacy, but the rules used to pursue that objective must also be assessed in light of their effects on rivals. Privacy protection and fair competition are not mutually exclusive. A consent mechanism can safeguard personal data while giving users neutral information and avoiding unjustified differences between competing services.
For consumers, the practical significance lies in clearer choices about advertising-related data use. For developers, it lies in more consistent access conditions and a mechanism for challenging the application of the rules. More broadly, the case shows that operators of powerful digital ecosystems are not immune from scrutiny when they set the terms on which other businesses compete.
Source: UOKiK, “Apple zmienia praktyki po interwencji Prezesa UOKiK”, 20 October 2026; decision DOK-7/2026.