Apple vs the Law

When a rule is vaguely defined, deliberately so that a regulator can take different interpretations depending on whether they are having any effect and who is doing it, even trivial things become complex. Eg: Meta is asked to withdraw monthly subscription for no ads offer when EU GDPR courts approved it, all EU publishers offer the same service, but the DMA interpretation of regulators for Meta keep saying No.

On the surface, it's easy to do. But that is also based on the assumptions where they had to maintain some first party apis vs now having to create and maintain them so that third parties could use it. If they are committed to security which apparently DSA mandates, they have to devote many resources on it to ensure there are no threat vectors. Plus, there is no set guidelines on how much the APIs need to offer, it will be another session where competition asks for more and they will be asked to do that too.

I didn't follow the case with Meta, but isn't it different ? Because you talk about both the GDPR and DMA, which are different regulations.

I agree that a lot of websites (mostly news websites) have the "ad tracking or subscription" model, and I'm not sure if there has been a clear ruling in it yet, but maybe the DMA makes this stricter for Meta since it is a Gatekeeper

That is exactly why the EU offers consultation workshops like the one mentioned in the article - so that companies can discuss this sort of thing and figure out a way that is workable for both them and the legislator.

It's unfortunate that Apple thinks of these as opportunities to lecture them on their own laws instead and unsurprising that approach doesn't work.

Consultation workshops should not be needed. The rule should be clear enough that there is a clear interpretation for everyone. If you need these kind of consultations, you already signal it will be a moving target. Why not just publish clearly what they want Apple to do. In any case, if this was about reaching what works for both regulator and Apple, don't you think these would have happened before DMA went into effect. The timelines are that DMA went into effect in 2023, the first changes in March 2024, and then first set of workshops last year, and second set this year. Is this a novel way to first do the changes and only then discuss them?

I understand a situation where what they want is literally impossible via tech, but then if EU is already talking to others in the space, they would have the same understanding. Otherwise, why keep the regulations vague?

Based on various accounts it does not seem these workshops are looking at arriving at a consensus either. Morever, it seems Apple did consult with EU regulators while rolling out their changes.

Meta offered Pay-or-consent model (nov 23) at 10 euros or so to placate the then GDPR regulators, as the court found contractual necessity as an invalid argument. CJEU stance seems like its valid for meta and they had a long opinion on that.

But DMA regulators dont agree calling it a false choice and asking meta to monetize by non personalized ads. The thing as you mentioned is how other publishers have the same model, which was never objected by any authority under GDPR either (so they clearly seem to think the model is valid). Its obviously a sticky situation where rules are different for different companies in the same jurisdiction when they are offering the same thing.

A counter could be whether if Meta isn't allowed, would no one else be allowed, but you already know the answer to that question.

That is how EU law works - the intent matters, not any written down version. Not only is that the only workable way when 24 different language versions of any law are valid at the same time, it also prevents rules-lawyering on technicalities that is oh-too-common in law systems like the one in the US.

Apple knows the intent of the law and thus they know what to do. They just don't want to and so try to but-actually their way around it with bad-faith interpretations like they would in other systems. What they don't get is that that's just not how things work here.

> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation).

> This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism.

> Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...