Apple is facing a £2 billion lawsuit in the UK regarding App Tracking Transparency, initiated by a former official from the CMA.

      Apple is confronted with a £2bn lawsuit in London regarding the privacy prompt that transformed mobile advertising. The case, presented at the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of UK app developers, asserts that the App Tracking Transparency policy excludes Apple from its requirements.

      Reuters reported the claim, estimating its value at $2.7bn. Ann Pope, a former senior official from the Competition and Markets Authority, is leading the case, placing an ex-regulator on the opposing side.

      The focus of the allegation is on asymmetry rather than privacy itself. Developers contend that Apple mandates them to secure explicit consent before tracking users across apps, while Apple's own advertising operation collects similar data without meeting that requirement.

      Pope has framed the lawsuit in two parts, stating the goal is “to ensure that the rules applied by Apple are equitable and to compensate for the losses incurred by British companies.”

      Apple has maintained its stance, asserting that the framework provides “important privacy protections” for users, and has refrained from commenting further on the claim.

      The feature in question was introduced in 2021 and rapidly influenced the industry. The prompt that asks users whether an app can track them across others significantly reduced the flow of identifiers that mobile advertising relied upon, impacting businesses that buy and sell that data the most.

      Developers indicate that the main concern is measurement; without a cross-app identifier, an app struggles to determine which advertisement led to a paying customer, resulting in advertisers paying more to generate sales they cannot attribute.

      During this same period, Apple’s advertising business expanded. This sequence is under review by regulators in four European countries, and the tribunal will now be tasked with assessing it.

      The Competition Appeal Tribunal operates under an opt-out collective regime, meaning that a certified class encompasses all developers who meet the definition unless they choose to opt out. This mechanism allows claims of this size to be formed from businesses that would typically not litigate individually.

      Apple has previously faced a setback in this venue. In October of last year, the tribunal concluded that between 2015 and 2020, the company exploited its dominant position by overcharging for App Store commissions, resulting in a case valued at approximately £1.5bn brought forth by academic Rachael Kent, which Apple is appealing.

      In contrast, its main competitor chose not to contest. Google settled a UK class action regarding Play Store fees for £260m rather than risk a judicial ruling.

      Developers also have another case underway, centered on App Store fees already presented to the tribunal. This new case focuses on the advertising layer rather than the commission, representing a different revenue avenue and a distinct theory of harm.

      The App Store is currently facing legal scrutiny across multiple continents. The US Supreme Court is set to hear Apple’s appeal related to a contempt finding in the Epic case, which concerns commissions rather than tracking but relies on similar arguments about platform control.

      In Europe, evidence is being compiled. France's competition authority fined Apple €150m in 2025 for the implementation of the framework, Italy's regulator imposed a fine on the company in December, and Poland is conducting an investigation.

      Germany chose to pursue a remedy instead of a penalty, prompting Apple to revise its tracking-consent rules to resolve a self-preferencing investigation by the Bundeskartellamt, which represents the closest any authority has come to altering the design of the prompt.

      However, none of these findings are binding on a British tribunal. They do provide claimants with examples from four competition authorities that investigated the same behavior and did not simply accept the privacy justification.

      No decisions have been reached yet. The claim must undergo certification before moving forward; Apple will challenge this phase, and both the class definition and the method for calculating developer losses are still subjects for debate.