Um tribunal de apelações dos Estados Unidos deu ganho de causa à Apple no processo de plágio movido por Francesca Gregorini contra a série “Servant”, dirigida e produzida por M. Night Shyamalan.
Aberta em 2020, a ação argumentava que o Apple TV havia copiado o enredo do filme “A Grande Ilusão” (“The Truth About Emanuel”), lançado em 2013 e dirigido por Gregorini. De acordo com ela, a produção “usa a mesma linguagem cinematográfica” que sua obra, tornando-as “substancialmente semelhantes”.
Agora, de acordo com a Reuters, o Tribunal de Apelações do Nono Circuito rejeitou o recurso apresentado por Gregorini após essa decisão sob o argumento de que Shyamalan não poderia ter copiado o filme dela.
Em seu recurso, a diretora disse que o júri deveria ter recebido instruções mais detalhadas sobre o alcance do seu filme, o que ajudaria a esclarecer se os criadores de “Servant” poderiam ou não tê-lo visto antes de a série começar a ser produzida. Ela também contestou o fato de a juíza responsável pelo caso ter aceitado o veredito sem antes responder a uma pergunta dos jurados sobre o termo “disseminação generalizada”.
Ainda segundo as informações, o tribunal disse que as instruções fornecidas ao júri refletiam com precisão a lei aplicável e que a magistrada não era obrigada a fornecer uma definição mais detalhada sobre o termo citado. A corte também rejeitou o argumento de que a juíza abusou de seu poder discricionário ao aceitar o veredito unânime do júri sem antes responder à pergunta dos jurados.
O filme de Gregorini apresenta uma mãe delirante e uma babá que criam uma boneca como se ela fosse uma criança de verdade. A autora viu semelhanças desse enredo com o de “Servant”, que traz uma babá sendo contratada por um casal para ajudar a criar um boneco em substituição ao seu filho falecido.
O Apple TV está disponível no aplicativo Apple TV em mais de 100 países e regiões, seja em iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs, Macs, dispositivos Android, smart TVs ou online — além de estar em aparelhos como Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast com Google TV, consoles PlayStation e Xbox. O serviço custa R$34,90 por mês, com um período de teste gratuito de 7 dias. Por tempo limitado, quem comprar e ativar um novo iPhone, iPad, Apple TV ou Mac ganha 3 meses do Apple TV. Ele também faz parte do pacote de assinaturas da empresa, o Apple One.
NOTA DE TRANSPARÊNCIA: O MacMagazine recebe uma pequena comissão sobre vendas concluídas por meio de links deste post, mas você, como consumidor, não paga nada a mais pelos produtos/serviços ao usar os nossos links de afiliado.
App Tracking Transparency is at the center of a new UK lawsuit seeking approximately $2.7 billion (£2 billion), putting one of the most recognizable iPhone privacy features under fresh legal pressure. The claim follows earlier challenges to the tracking system in France, but this action seeks compensation for developers who say Apple imposed unfair restrictions on their businesses while favoring its own advertising services.
Filed on September 3 at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case represents another dispute over the rules behind the familiar permission prompt. Apple rejects the allegations and maintains that it follows the same App Tracking Transparency requirements as other developers.
The amount being sought is not a fine or an awarded payment. It is the claimants’ estimate of losses, which Apple disputes.
What the App Tracking Transparency Lawsuit Alleges
The action was brought by ATT Collective Action Limited, whose director, Ann Pope, previously led antitrust enforcement at the UK Competition and Markets Authority. Law firm Hausfeld is representing the proposed class.
According to Hausfeld’s announcement of the claim, developers argue that Apple introduced the framework unfairly, without adequate consultation, and applied more burdensome requirements to outside businesses than to its own services.
The complaint focuses partly on consent. It alleges that third-party developers must obtain permission under data-protection law and then secure an additional approval through the iOS tracking prompt. Apple’s advertising services, the claimants argue, operate under a less demanding process.
Developers also contend that the introduction left them insufficient time to adapt business models dependent on advertising.
These are allegations about how the system was designed and introduced—not established findings in this UK case. The claimants’ stated position is that privacy protections should remain compatible with fair treatment of businesses.
Image Credit: AppleMagazine
What the Tracking Prompt Actually Protects
For someone using an iPhone, App Tracking Transparency offers a direct choice about a practice that previously could be difficult to see.
An app may want to connect information about your activity with information gathered through other companies’ apps or websites. That connection can help advertisers build a profile, target advertisements, or measure whether an advertising campaign led to a purchase.
Under Apple’s explanation of the tracking rules, apps must request permission before carrying out the tracking covered by the framework. Choosing “Ask App Not to Track” blocks access to the system advertising identifier and prohibits using other identifying information to perform that tracking instead.
The feature arrived with iOS 14.5 in 2021. It does not remove advertisements, make an app anonymous, or serve as a universal switch for every kind of data collection.
That boundary matters. A retailer remembering purchases made within its own service is not automatically doing the same thing as an advertising company linking activity across unrelated businesses.
The disagreement concerns whether those distinctions, and the consent processes built around them, give Apple an unfair commercial advantage.
Apple Says the Same Rules Apply to Everyone
Apple has responded directly to the lawsuit, defending the feature as a way to give people control over tracking across other companies’ services.
In a statement reported by AFP, a spokesperson said: “Apple is bound by the exact same requirements as all developers under ATT.”
The company also pointed to support for the feature from customers and privacy advocates.
That response challenges the foundation of the developers’ case. Apple presents App Tracking Transparency as a rule based on the type of data activity involved. The claimants argue that its practical operation places competing advertising businesses at a disadvantage.
Resolving that disagreement requires more than comparing the appearance of two permission screens. The underlying data uses, consent requirements, and commercial effects all matter.
Why Free Apps Are Part of the Dispute
Advertising can support both sides of an app business. A developer may sell advertising space inside a free app while also buying advertisements elsewhere to attract new users.
A change to tracking can therefore affect how much an app earns and how confidently its developer can measure spending on promotion.
Consider a small game studio. It needs to know whether an advertising campaign brings in players who keep using the game. If measurement becomes less precise, deciding where to spend the next marketing dollar becomes harder. Separately, advertisers may value the game’s available ad space differently when less information is available for targeting.
That explains the commercial concern without proving the legal claim. Losing revenue after a privacy change does not, by itself, establish that the change was unlawful.
There is also a consumer interest that cannot be reduced to advertising performance. Someone choosing not to be tracked is expressing a preference about personal information, not making a promise to preserve a developer’s previous income.
The difficult question is whether that preference can be protected through a system that treats competing businesses fairly.
France Has Already Examined the Consent Process
The UK action arrives after a separate French competition investigation found problems with the implementation of App Tracking Transparency.
In its March 2025 decision, France’s Autorité de la concurrence distinguished between the legitimate objective of protecting privacy and the way Apple pursued it.
The authority criticized multiple consent requests and differences in treatment between Apple and outside publishers. It also highlighted the position of smaller businesses that lack the extensive first-party data available to large platforms.
Importantly, the French authority did not argue that people should lose the ability to refuse tracking. It said adjustments to the framework could address competition concerns while retaining privacy protections.
That distinction leaves room for changes to wording, consent flows, or implementation without automatically requiring the removal of the feature. The French decision, however, does not determine liability or compensation in the separate UK proceedings.
The Claim Is for Developers, Not iPhone Owners
The official claim website describes a proposed action for UK-based app developers affected since April 2021. It estimates losses across the group rather than offering a fixed payment to everyone who owns an iPhone.
The proposed scope includes developers earning advertising revenue from third-party iOS apps and developers spending money to attract users to those apps. Whether compensation becomes available depends on the proceedings and their outcome.
For U.S. readers, the filing does not announce a change to domestic iPhone settings or create a consumer refund program. There is no reason to grant an app tracking permission simply because its developer objects to the framework.
Businesses following the case should also distinguish registering interest from receiving compensation. The claim website currently invites affected organizations to provide their details; it is not distributing a settlement.
With App Tracking Transparency, apps are required to get a user’s permission to track or access their device’s advertising identifier.
Apple is facing a massive £2 billion ($2.7 billion) collective lawsuit in the UK, accused of abusing its dominant position in the smartphone market by enforcing unfair privacy rules that hobbled rival app developers while boosting its own advertising empire.
The class-action claim, filed Thursday at London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal by ATT Collective Action Limited, alleges that the tech giant’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework introduced in 2021 placed stringent restrictions on third-party developers while giving its own internal services a distinct competitive edge.
Privacy Feature or Self-Serving Gatekeeping?
Apple launched the ATT framework in 2021, marketing it as a privacy-first feature designed to give users control over whether third-party apps could track their browsing and usage activity across other companies’ apps and websites.
However, lawyers and claimants behind the action argue that Apple operated under a double standard. While third-party developers faced a mandatory prompt that dramatically curtailed opt-in rates for targeted advertising, Apple’s own ad platform operated under far less restrictive conditions—gathering user data without imposing the same burdensome consent friction on users.
“Apple’s policy resulted in very significant harm to businesses that depend on Apple as a gatekeeper,” said Ann Pope, a former senior official with Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) who is leading the litigation. “This action is important to protect the rights of British businesses that depend on Apple, to ensure that the rules that Apple applies are fair, and to compensate the losses that British companies have suffered.”
Under the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s opt-out regime, the class action covers all affected UK-based developers automatically unless they choose to explicitly opt out.
Growing Regulatory Scrutiny Across Europe
The London claim is part of a broader regulatory backlash against Apple’s privacy policies across Europe. Multiple antitrust watchdogs have investigated whether the iPhone maker used privacy safeguards as a shield for self-preferencing:
• Germany: Germany’s Federal Cartel Office launched an abuse-of-dominance probe into ATT, which resulted in Apple agreeing to modify its ad-tracking data rules for developers.
• France & Italy: Competition regulators in France and Italy previously levied major fines—exceeding £150 million and £98 million respectively—over anti-competitive practices tied to user consent frameworks.
• Broad Industry Pushback: Major platforms dependent on ad targeting, including Meta (formerly Facebook), alongside news publishers and independent mobile developers, have long criticized ATT for disproportionately choking off revenue models reliant on digital ads.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple has historically defended ATT as a core consumer feature aimed solely at granting users transparent choices over their personal data.
The outcome of the tribunal proceedings could set a major precedent for digital gatekeeper regulation across Europe, adding to a slew of ongoing legal challenges regarding App Store fees and ecosystem dominance.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
O 9.º Tribunal de Recurso dos EUA recusou ontem o recurso das empresas tecnológicas, concluindo que a Secção 230 oferece uma defesa de responsabilidade, e não imunidade total. O julgamento que envolve 29 procuradores-gerais estatais começa esta quarta-feira em Oakland.
With Advanced Data Protection for iCloud, users have the choice to further protect important iCloud data even in the case of a data breach.
Apple has filed a legal complaint with the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal seeking to overturn a secret government order requiring the company to enable access to encrypted customer data stored in its cloud services.The challenge, reported in early March 2025, targets a technical capability notice (TCN) issued by the Home Office in January under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The notice reportedly directed Apple to create the technical means for UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access data protected by the company’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature: an optional end-to-end encryption layer for iCloud backups, photos, notes and other files that even Apple itself cannot normally decrypt, according to Financial Times.
Apple responded by withdrawing ADP for UK users rather than comply, stating that it would not build a “back door” or master key into its products or services. The company has long argued that creating such access points would undermine security for all users and could be exploited by malicious actors. Standard iCloud encryption remains available and is accessible to Apple when presented with a valid legal warrant, but ADP provides a higher level of protection that the firm says it cannot and will not weaken.
The case is understood to be the first major legal test of the Investigatory Powers Act’s provisions allowing authorities to compel technology companies to maintain capabilities to access encrypted material. The tribunal, an independent body that reviews complaints against the UK’s security and intelligence agencies, could quash the notice if it finds the order unlawful. Proceedings were expected to begin relatively quickly, though the government was anticipated to seek restrictions on public disclosure on national security grounds.
The dispute highlights the long-running tension between tech firms’ commitment to strong encryption and governments’ desire for lawful access in cases involving terrorism, serious crime or national security. Privacy advocates have warned that any mandated vulnerability in widely used systems could have global repercussions, while UK authorities maintain that such powers are essential for public safety and are subject to legal safeguards.Apple has consistently maintained that it has never built backdoors into its systems and will not do so. The outcome of the tribunal challenge could set an important precedent for how encryption and government surveillance powers interact under UK law.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ve been fairly clear on this subject for many years:
It’s not enough that every Brit alive has a government camera shoved up their ass 24/7/365? The UK has already slipped far down the slope that they ought to rename the place Airstrip One. – MacDailyNews, November 3, 2015
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
The current batshit insane “leadership” of Airstrip One is having yet another crisis of confidence. – MacDailyNews, February 7, 2025
Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. – Potter Stewart
MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s Advanced Data Protection for iCloud is an optional setting that offers Apple’s highest level of cloud data security. If you choose to enable Advanced Data Protection, the majority of your iCloud data — including iCloud Backup, Photos, Notes, and more — is protected using end-to-end encryption. No one else can access your end-to-end encrypted data, not even Apple, and this data remains secure even in the case of a data breach in the cloud.
How to turn on Advanced Data Protection for iCloud
On Mac
Choose Apple menu > System Settings.
Click your name, then click iCloud.
Click Advanced Data Protection, then click Turn On.
Follow the onscreen instructions to review your recovery methods and enable Advanced Data Protection.
On iPhone and iPad
Open the Settings app.
Tap your name, then tap iCloud.
Scroll down, tap Advanced Data Protection, then tap Turn on Advanced Data Protection.
Follow the onscreen instructions to review your recovery methods and enable Advanced Data Protection.
More info about Apple’s Advanced Data Protection for iCloud here.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
A Google e a Epic Games retiraram esta semana o acordo que tinham alcançado para alterar uma decisão judicial nos Estados Unidos. A gigante tecnológica terá agora de abrir a Play Store a lojas de aplicações de terceiros a partir de 22 de julho.
O caso remonta a 2024, com a associação britânica de defesa dos consumidores Which? a acusar a Apple de abusar da sua posição dominante no mercado ao “prender” os utilizadores do iPhone e de outros equipamentos ao iCloud. A empresa da maçã rejeita as acusações.
Britain is facing a surge in people taking their employers to court, with claims up 55% year on year, following Angela Rayner’s sweeping workers' rights reforms.
Login
