App Tracking Transparency is at the center of a new UK lawsuit seeking approximately $2.7 billion (£2 billion), putting one of the most recognizable iPhone privacy features under fresh legal pressure. The claim follows earlier challenges to the tracking system in France, but this action seeks compensation for developers who say Apple imposed unfair restrictions on their businesses while favoring its own advertising services.

Filed on September 3 at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case represents another dispute over the rules behind the familiar permission prompt. Apple rejects the allegations and maintains that it follows the same App Tracking Transparency requirements as other developers.

The amount being sought is not a fine or an awarded payment. It is the claimants’ estimate of losses, which Apple disputes.

What the App Tracking Transparency Lawsuit Alleges

The action was brought by ATT Collective Action Limited, whose director, Ann Pope, previously led antitrust enforcement at the UK Competition and Markets Authority. Law firm Hausfeld is representing the proposed class.

According to Hausfeld’s announcement of the claim, developers argue that Apple introduced the framework unfairly, without adequate consultation, and applied more burdensome requirements to outside businesses than to its own services.

The complaint focuses partly on consent. It alleges that third-party developers must obtain permission under data-protection law and then secure an additional approval through the iOS tracking prompt. Apple’s advertising services, the claimants argue, operate under a less demanding process.

Developers also contend that the introduction left them insufficient time to adapt business models dependent on advertising.

These are allegations about how the system was designed and introduced—not established findings in this UK case. The claimants’ stated position is that privacy protections should remain compatible with fair treatment of businesses.

What the Tracking Prompt Actually Protects

For someone using an iPhone, App Tracking Transparency offers a direct choice about a practice that previously could be difficult to see.

An app may want to connect information about your activity with information gathered through other companies’ apps or websites. That connection can help advertisers build a profile, target advertisements, or measure whether an advertising campaign led to a purchase.

Under Apple’s explanation of the tracking rules, apps must request permission before carrying out the tracking covered by the framework. Choosing “Ask App Not to Track” blocks access to the system advertising identifier and prohibits using other identifying information to perform that tracking instead.

The feature arrived with iOS 14.5 in 2021. It does not remove advertisements, make an app anonymous, or serve as a universal switch for every kind of data collection.

That boundary matters. A retailer remembering purchases made within its own service is not automatically doing the same thing as an advertising company linking activity across unrelated businesses.

The disagreement concerns whether those distinctions, and the consent processes built around them, give Apple an unfair commercial advantage.

Apple Says the Same Rules Apply to Everyone

Apple has responded directly to the lawsuit, defending the feature as a way to give people control over tracking across other companies’ services.

In a statement reported by AFP, a spokesperson said: “Apple is bound by the exact same requirements as all developers under ATT.”

The company also pointed to support for the feature from customers and privacy advocates.

That response challenges the foundation of the developers’ case. Apple presents App Tracking Transparency as a rule based on the type of data activity involved. The claimants argue that its practical operation places competing advertising businesses at a disadvantage.

Resolving that disagreement requires more than comparing the appearance of two permission screens. The underlying data uses, consent requirements, and commercial effects all matter.

Why Free Apps Are Part of the Dispute

Advertising can support both sides of an app business. A developer may sell advertising space inside a free app while also buying advertisements elsewhere to attract new users.

A change to tracking can therefore affect how much an app earns and how confidently its developer can measure spending on promotion.

Consider a small game studio. It needs to know whether an advertising campaign brings in players who keep using the game. If measurement becomes less precise, deciding where to spend the next marketing dollar becomes harder. Separately, advertisers may value the game’s available ad space differently when less information is available for targeting.

That explains the commercial concern without proving the legal claim. Losing revenue after a privacy change does not, by itself, establish that the change was unlawful.

There is also a consumer interest that cannot be reduced to advertising performance. Someone choosing not to be tracked is expressing a preference about personal information, not making a promise to preserve a developer’s previous income.

The difficult question is whether that preference can be protected through a system that treats competing businesses fairly.

France Has Already Examined the Consent Process

The UK action arrives after a separate French competition investigation found problems with the implementation of App Tracking Transparency.

In its March 2025 decision, France’s Autorité de la concurrence distinguished between the legitimate objective of protecting privacy and the way Apple pursued it.

The authority criticized multiple consent requests and differences in treatment between Apple and outside publishers. It also highlighted the position of smaller businesses that lack the extensive first-party data available to large platforms.

Importantly, the French authority did not argue that people should lose the ability to refuse tracking. It said adjustments to the framework could address competition concerns while retaining privacy protections.

That distinction leaves room for changes to wording, consent flows, or implementation without automatically requiring the removal of the feature. The French decision, however, does not determine liability or compensation in the separate UK proceedings.

The Claim Is for Developers, Not iPhone Owners

The official claim website describes a proposed action for UK-based app developers affected since April 2021. It estimates losses across the group rather than offering a fixed payment to everyone who owns an iPhone.

The proposed scope includes developers earning advertising revenue from third-party iOS apps and developers spending money to attract users to those apps. Whether compensation becomes available depends on the proceedings and their outcome.

For U.S. readers, the filing does not announce a change to domestic iPhone settings or create a consumer refund program. There is no reason to grant an app tracking permission simply because its developer objects to the framework.

Businesses following the case should also distinguish registering interest from receiving compensation. The claim website currently invites affected organizations to provide their details; it is not distributing a settlement.

The post App Tracking Transparency: Apple Faces $2.7 Billion UK Lawsuit appeared first on AppleMagazine.

In this Op-Ed piece, Samreen Makhfi, an Afghan woman currently living in Afghanistan, reflects on life in Afghanistan five years after the Taliban’s return to power, using the country’s Independence Day—August 19—as a contrast between its historical aspirations and present conditions. The Debrief’s Chrissy Newton contributed to this report.

Today is August 19, 2026. One hundred and seven years ago, on this day, King Amanullah Khan declared Afghanistan independent. Were Queen Soraya alive to witness this day, sorrow would overwhelm her. Perhaps sorrow would be too small a word.

She carried the torch of education for Afghan girls, believing that a nation could not walk forward while half of its people were kept behind. Now that torch seems to have been extinguished by decrees and prohibitions. Girls are shut out of secondary school and university. Women’s paths into professions that once promised them a future as teachers, doctors, engineers, and artists have narrowed or disappeared. They are granted only the bitter permission to survive, polishing men’s shoes until their hands harden, and begging in the streets until their voices become hoarse. 

My sister tells me she even misses the honking of the car that used to take us to school, that impatient horn we once felt irritated by. Back then, she complained about waking up too early and counted the days until holidays. Now she says, “I even miss the feeling of being sleepy, the heavy eyelids, the rush of morning air, the chatter of classmates as soon as we entered the gate.”

What once felt like a burden became a relic. I miss the little shop near our school. I remember the elderly uncle who seemed to know exactly how easily my sweet tooth could betray me. He would smile when he saw us and say, “I’ve brought a new flavor of cupcakes and chocolate.” It is strange how oppression can make you nostalgic for things you once considered ordinary.

Consequences of closing those classroom doors reach far beyond the girls sitting behind them. Afghan men want female doctors to treat their wives, mothers, and daughters. They want women to be cared for by women, especially in matters of health and childbirth. But how can tomorrow’s female doctors exist when today’s girls are prevented from becoming students? The ones who are denied education are the very girls who could have filled those roles. 

Decree No. 18, issued in May 2026, states that a girl’s silence after puberty can be interpreted as consent to marriage. Imagine being too young to understand what marriage means, yet old enough, according to the law, for your silence to be placed on a contract you never knew you were signing. And if that marriage becomes a place of violence rather than safety, escape is not equally available to her. Men retain unilateral divorce rights, while women face restrictive judicial avenues for separation. Even the language of the law can become another wall between a woman and the life she wants to reclaim.

However, the walls do not end at the home. The country’s beauty is fenced off, too; women are not allowed to visit many tourist sites, even with their families. Restrictions on women’s access to public spaces have made ordinary pleasures such as parks, public places, and travel another negotiation with authority. I think of Qargha. Its waters glitter beneath the sun, and the breeze carries the scent of pine. Somewhere in that landscape, a girl should be able to laugh beside the water and to dip their hands into its coolness. But even the beauty of the country can become gendered. The mountains remain visible. The lake remains blue. The wind still moves through the trees. Only the people allowed to enjoy them have changed.

At this point, men’s situation is no better than ours. University graduates joke bitterly, “We successfully completed the journey from ‘university students’ to ‘unemployed’.” The joke lands because everyone knows a degree has become a piece of paper. A profession has become a distant possibility. A young person looks toward adulthood and finds the road strangely empty. One of today’s high officials even declared that political loyalty can matter more than merit in terms of opportunities. 

Once, even our flawed elections gave us the illusion that our voices could tug, however weakly, on the direction and fate of the country. The ballot box was imperfect, but it gave people the sensation of having a hand on the wheel. Now even that thread has snapped. There is no ballot to mark, no campaign to argue over, no candidate to disappoint us after promising something better. Right now, citizens have no say in the politics of their country. In the media, the only journalists who can survive are those who avoid talking about everything that is going wrong. And underneath the politics is something much more immediate.

Bread

For many families, bread is scarce, and work is scarcer. Poverty does not always arrive dramatically. Sometimes it is an empty cupboard and fridge, a postponed purchase, or a child asking for something that a parent cannot afford. Sometimes it is watching one family struggle while another, somehow, continues to live comfortably, its pockets lined with opportunities that seem to belong to a different Afghanistan.

Leaving has become its own kind of privilege. A person can dream of another country and still find the border of that dream closed. Visas are denied or restricted, and the simple desire to travel somewhere else, to see another country, breathe different air, return home again, can become almost impossible. And yet, even in the face of closed borders, desperation has driven many Afghans to move anyway.

Many, overwhelmed by the hopelessness of life here, have even fled toward Iran while war was still raging there. They looked at a country caught in conflict and somehow decided that perhaps danger there was preferable to the life waiting for them here. There is something devastating about that calculation. When people begin comparing one war with another and asking which one might be easier to survive, you know home has stopped feeling like home.

Afghanistan remains

The mountains have not packed their bags. The morning sun still spills over Kabul. Children still laugh. Mothers still cook. Someone still opens a shop in the morning. Someone still remembers the taste of a particular chocolate. Somewhere, perhaps, a girl still keeps an old school notebook tucked inside a drawer, its pages filled with handwriting from a life that feels increasingly distant. And still, some study through second‑hand phones, and some work online.

Perhaps the world remembers us; perhaps it has turned away. But the true heroes are those who carry our story in their lungs, those who breathe it in, breathe it out, and refuse to let silence become the final language of Afghanistan.

Poem by Samreen Makhfi

It is the fifth year now and the walls 

are coming closer

inch by inch, stone by stone

I come to the tree

 

The same one that has stood through 

all our years, older than my father

older than his father, a witness planted 

deep in the bones of Kabul

 

It remembers the golden days

of Zahir Shah, and the ones that followed 

It saw the first Taliban rise

and watched them fall

 

It watched the Republic arrive with its 

promises, its flags, its endless foreign money 

pouring into the pockets of men who enjoyed 

themselves in air-conditioned rooms when civilians 

 

paid with their blood 

Then it saw them return. Again.The Taliban

I place both hands on the trunk

and shake it with everything I have

 

The bark scrapes my palms

The smell of sap rises into my throat

“Tell me,” I scream, “how can you still stand?”

“How, when you have seen everything?”

 

Great-grandfather cut your branches

for the bitter winters, and you grew them back.

Grandfather carved your strong wood

into a swing for his grandsons,

 

Father sat beneath your shadow

when the Kabul sun burned the streets white.

And you–you still stand.

I press my forehead against your skin.

 

You are warm. Steady. Alive.

I am here to borrow some of your strength.

I am tired of history repeating itself 

I am tired

I am tired

I am tired

Samreen Makhfi is the pen name of an Afghan woman currently living in Afghanistan.