# Apple requires App Store privacy nutrition labels

Date: 2020

## The fact

In December 2020 Apple began requiring privacy nutrition labels on the App Store, a completed disclosure instrument under Cook. App Tracking Transparency followed in 2021.

## Context

Neighbouring Zuckerberg is a different person who later criticised ATT. Neighbouring DMA is later EU law.

FBI 2016 is neighbouring encryption. DMA 2023 is later EU gatekeeper law. ATT 2021 is part of this cluster.

[Tim Cook](/people/tim-cook) has been Apple CEO since 24 August 2011. He does not write a DOJ complaint, a Commission DMA decision, an Irish Finance Act, or a Chinese Cyberspace Administration rule. Steve Jobs is a different, dead person. A product launch is not a labour statute. A privacy keynote is not a completed DMA compliance certificate. Keep those dates separate. A 10-K climate page is not a unique ppm. An assembler audit is not a unique suicide count as his personal tally. A DMA listing is not a completed sideload world. A DOJ complaint is not a breakup. TSMC fabricates; Foxconn assembles; App Review enforces.

## Evidence and sources

Apple carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently.

## Significance

The path is [personal-data-protection](/drivers/personal-data-protection) and antitrust mixed: a completed disclosure-and-ATT cluster is a tracking-constraint instrument that also concentrated Apple’s own ad stack.

## What is established and what is not

Established: December 2020 privacy labels (and 2021 ATT), independently reported.

Not established: that tracking ended, or a unique later publisher-revenue coefficient from the label PDF.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

App Review enforced. Developers labelled. Meta and others lost some tracking. Regulators later asked whether ATT favoured Apple’s ads.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies Apple requires App Store privacy nutrition labels, not a later speech about Apple requires App Store privacy nutrition labels.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. Apple requires App Store privacy nutrition labels on 2020-12-14 is not a licence to treat every later Apple communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Apple requires App Store privacy nutrition labels into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He shipped the policy as CEO. App Review enforced. Developers labelled. Meta and others lost some tracking. Regulators later asked whether ATT favoured Apple’s ads. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

## People

- Tim Cook: https://factrail.ai/people/tim-cook

## Drivers

- Personal-Data Protection: https://factrail.ai/drivers/personal-data-protection
- Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration

## Sources

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-privacy-idUSKBN28O0K4
- https://www.apple.com/newsroom/

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/aapl-privacy-labels-2020