Apple Wins Partial Court Victories In Global Privacy Battles

Apple, the tech giant known for its robust privacy marketing, has found itself at the center of an international legal storm over how it collects and manages user data. In a series of recent court decisions spanning both the United States and Europe, Apple has secured partial victories—though not without ongoing scrutiny and unresolved questions about its privacy commitments and competitive practices.

On January 20, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California delivered a significant, if somewhat technical, win for Apple in a class action lawsuit. The suit, originally filed in November 2022 by developers Mysk, accused Apple of violating California privacy laws by allegedly collecting user data through its first-party apps—including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, Stocks, and Game Center—even when users believed they had opted out of such tracking. Plaintiffs claimed Apple’s privacy assurances were "utterly false," asserting that toggling options like “Allow Apps to Request to Track” or disabling device analytics did little, if anything, to prevent Apple from gathering data for its own purposes.

But the court’s ruling, as reported by Bloomberg Law, hinged less on Apple’s exoneration and more on procedural shortcomings in the plaintiffs’ case. Judge Edward J. Davila, presiding over the matter, granted Apple’s motion to dismiss several claims, including alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Constitution, the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of implied contract, and Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA). The judge found that the complaints failed to meet the necessary legal standards, citing contradictions in definitions—such as what constitutes a “pen register”—and a lack of specificity regarding wiretapping allegations. In particular, the court noted that expectations of zero data transmission to Apple were “objectively unreasonable,” given the nature of digital communications and the technical realities of app usage.

Despite this partial dismissal, the story is far from over. Judge Davila left the door open, albeit just a crack, for the plaintiffs to amend their claims one final time within a 30-day window. “It is doubtful whether Plaintiffs can sufficiently plead their dismissed claims given the deficiencies addressed in this Order, which have remained despite Plaintiffs’ having had an opportunity to amend,” Davila wrote. Still, he allowed a last chance “out of an abundance of caution,” suggesting that while the legal path ahead is steep for the plaintiffs, the case is not entirely closed.

Yet Apple’s legal challenges do not end at the California border. While the U.S. case continues, some claims have already survived earlier judicial scrutiny. Notably, allegations related to the “Share Device Analytics” setting remain active, including breach of contract and consumer protection violations in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Judge Davila found that plaintiffs had plausibly argued they withdrew consent to data collection by disabling this setting, keeping alive the debate over what Apple’s privacy controls truly offer users.

Across the Atlantic, Apple has been fighting battles of a different kind. In France, the company recently avoided a potential ban on its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature, a cornerstone of its privacy pitch since iOS 14.5. ATT requires apps to seek user permission before tracking behavior across other apps and websites. If users decline, the flow of personal data to advertisers and third-party developers is sharply curtailed—much to the chagrin of an advertising industry reliant on such information for targeted campaigns.

According to Macworld, the Paris court’s decision to uphold ATT came in the wake of a €150 million fine levied by France’s antitrust regulator in March 2025. The regulator criticized ATT as “neither necessary nor proportionate” and described its implementation as “abusive within the meaning of competition law.” Advertisers and app developers, already reeling from revenue declines attributed to ATT, had hoped the fine would be a prelude to a full ban on the feature in France. However, the court sided with Apple, allowing ATT to remain in place for now.

Apple wasted no time in celebrating the ruling, issuing a statement reaffirming its commitment to user privacy. The company emphasized that ATT empowers users by giving them real control over how their data is used—a message that resonates with many consumers but remains hotly contested among industry rivals and regulators.

Still, Apple’s European privacy saga is far from resolved. The Paris court’s decision does not shield ATT from ongoing scrutiny elsewhere in the European Union. As noted by MacRumors, regulatory authorities in Germany, Italy, and Poland continue to examine the broader implications of Apple’s privacy framework, particularly its impact on competition and the digital advertising ecosystem. The stakes are high: ATT is deeply embedded in Apple’s operating system, and any forced removal or modification would require sweeping technical changes.

These parallel legal battles—across continents and legal systems—highlight the complex, often contradictory landscape of digital privacy, consumer rights, and corporate responsibility. On the one hand, Apple positions itself as a champion of user privacy, touting features like ATT and granular device settings as evidence of its commitment. On the other, plaintiffs and regulators argue that these same features can be misleading, insufficient, or even anticompetitive, depending on the lens through which they are viewed.

For consumers, the takeaway is both reassuring and unsettling. While courts have, for now, sided with Apple on several fronts, the underlying questions remain: How much control do users really have over their data? Are privacy settings genuinely effective, or do they offer only the illusion of choice? And as technology continues to blur the boundaries between personal and public information, will legal systems be able to keep pace?

As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will remain on Apple—not just for its next product launch, but for how it navigates the increasingly fraught territory of digital privacy and competition law. Whether these cases ultimately redefine the rules of the digital road or simply reinforce the status quo, one thing is certain: the debate over who controls user data, and on what terms, is far from settled.