Apple says Senate big-tech law will undermine its user-privacy

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to debate a bipartisan bill called the American Innovation and Choice Online Act on Thursday, which supporters say aims to protect digital competition. This law applies to Apple, Amazon.com Inc., Google-parent Alphabet Inc. and Facebook’s Meta Platforms Inc. is set to limit the power of the largest US tech companies, including

Apple’s hugely profitable App Store business is in the crosshairs after years of pressure from rivals, who have complained that it takes too large a cut in the revenue it generates through its App Marketplace. The iPhone maker has said Congress’s effort to stop it from prohibiting “sideloading”—the practice of downloading software to your phone outside the security of the App Store—will expose users to security threats because those apps can’t be vetted. Will be done.

Apple reiterated those claims on Tuesday, according to a letter to committee leaders seen by The Wall Street Journal. But the company also argued that the law would benefit “people who have been irresponsible with users’ data” and who have opposed a program called App Tracking Transparency about a year ago. This initiative requires a third party app to search for users. Consent to track their activities on the Internet.

“While ATT’s response from consumers has been overwhelmingly positive, some of the largest social media and advertising companies have complained publicly about the impact of these new privacy protections on their profits,” Apple lobbyist Timothy Powderly wrote in the letter.

US Sen. Spokesperson Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights, called Apple’s letter misleading, saying in a statement that the law includes provisions to protect privacy and security. Ms. Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, is a co-sponsor of the legislation.

A statement from their office said, “All of Apple’s arguments about ‘sideloading’ are actually the equivalent of a desperate attempt to maintain their App Store monopoly, which they use to extort heavy fees from those businesses.” against whom they are competing.” “Let’s be clear – this multitrillion-dollar company is more than capable of protecting privacy and security while still giving consumers more choice by allowing competition.”

While Mr Powderley did not name specific companies, Facebook publicly opposed the rollout of the privacy tool, arguing it would harm small businesses that rely on targeted advertising. Since the tool’s introduction, Meta and Snapchat parent Snap Inc. reported quarterly results that have slowed.

“Under pending bills, this pro-consumer program would be at risk, as it would be extremely challenging to prove that ATT is ‘essential, ‘narrowly prepared’ and that no less restrictive protections are available to obtain user consent for tracking.” It is,” wrote Mr. Powderly. “In contrast, companies collecting data would argue that the mechanism currently used to obtain user consent for tracking—a line buried in their terms of service—is sufficient.”

His letter is the latest example of Apple’s efforts to differentiate itself among the tech giant as some US lawmakers seek to acquire companies or limit access to large platforms. In October, Chief Executive Tim Cook cautioned against sweeping legislative changes that he said would unfairly tie companies together. Regulators and policymakers around the world are also making efforts to curb Apple’s power.

“The industry is not monolithic,” Cook said during an appearance at a tech conference in Salt Lake City at the time. “They’re very different segments and very different markets … we’re not in the social-media business, as an example, and so I think you have to take each one and make sure that whatever regulation comes up.” It addresses all the issues that you think exist, and doesn’t write a regulation that is so broad that it not only achieves the goal but it is available to everyone and at the same time.”

As the Senate committee prepares for a hearing this week, Cook was communicating with members to make their case against the law, according to a person familiar with the effort. Panchbol News first reported the conversation.