63 Secondly, they believe that Apple is impo- put forward their position and add to the In particular, developers have control over sing undue additional obligations on app information collected during the investiga- the text which explains, in the ATT window, developers. They therefore requested the tion. The Autorité also received an opinion the purpose of the personal data tracking Autorité to issue interim measures. from the CNIL on the various questions rela- carried out on third-party sites. They have ting to the applicability of privacy legisla- the possibility to delay the launch of the tion raised by the case. ATT prompt, by refraining during this REJECTION OF THE REQUEST Having analysed the matter, the Autorité period from using the IDFA, to track acti- FOR INTERIM MEASURES took the view, in the context of a preliminary vity on third-party sites; finally, they have examination, that the introduction of the the possibility to address two windows to To determine whether the request for inte- ATT prompt did not appear to be an abuse the user, before and after the appearance rim measures was well-founded, the Auto- of a dominant position by Apple, leading to of the ATT prompt, in order to explain why rité conducted an extensive investigation the imposition of unfair trading conditions. they need to be able to carry out activity under the interim procedure, interviewing tracking (for example to finance the app numerous professionals representing the The legitimate exercise of or the service offered), and convince the various online advertising professions. The a business strategy with respect user to change their mind if they refused discussions at the hearing of 10 February to personal data protection tracking, for example. 2021 enabled each of the stakeholders to In particular, the Autorité noted that the introduction of the ATT prompt was part of The issue of self-preferencing Apple’s long-standing strategy to protect will be examined in detail as part the privacy of users of its iOS products. It of the investigation on the merits R subsequently noted that such an initia- of the case tive fell within the scope of the discretion The Autorité rejected the request for inte- COMPLIANCE: enjoyed by any company to determine its rim measures, but nonetheless continues ADVICE TO technical or commercial strategy vis-à- the investigation into the merits of the case. UNDERTAKINGS vis its commercial partners or to lay down This investigation should make it possible A company, even if rules of use, including if that company had to verify that Apple’s implementation of the it is a structuring platform, a dominant position or could be regarded as ATT prompt cannot be considered as a form is in principle free to set a structuring platform. of discrimination or "self preferencing", rules of access to its which could in particular be the case if Apple services, provided that unjustifiably applied more restrictive rules these: The implementation of a mandatory for- • do not disregard malised framework, according to the for- to third party operators than those it applies applicable laws and mat and wording defined by Apple, could to itself for similar transactions. regulations; help ensure that users were correctly infor- • are not anticompetitive; med. In this regard, the Autorité noted that Decision 21-D-07 of 17 March 2021 • can be regarded the requirement to collect the ATT prompt as necessary and was not immediately implemented by Apple proportionate to (its effective date having been postponed the objective pursued. to March-April 2021) and that it allows for some flexibility for app developers. T ACTIVATING TRANSFORMATION I N S H O