I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others.
Will require opt-in to track:
Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store
Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store
Won’t require opt-in to track:
Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon
Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store
Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.
Why would this be relevant if tracking without consent is just an implementation choice?
Why even bother with a lawsuit over it if it’s not an important part of their business?
Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out if the wanted to?
In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.
Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine.
> Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to?
Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above).
> In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.
Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.
Users can opt-out if they are aware of the option. This this is just about users being made aware that they have the option, and being given the chance to grant consent before the action happens.
There is no argument that I see that Apple’s changes will pick winners or losers.
All it will do is reduce the information available from users who don’t consent to it.