Home Privacy Google Pledges Not To Kill Third-Party Cookies Without The UK Competition Watchdog’s Say-So

Google Pledges Not To Kill Third-Party Cookies Without The UK Competition Watchdog’s Say-So

SHARE:
Forget about asking for permission to collect cookies. Google will have to ask for permission to not collect them.
Children's toys in the sandbox. Children's shovel and rake in yellow.

Forget about asking for permission to collect cookies. Google will have to ask for permission to not collect them.

On Friday, the UK’s competition regulator – the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) – announced that Google has agreed to address concerns about its plan to remove third-party cookies from Chrome.

The compromise comes following a joint investigation launched in early January into the Chrome Privacy Sandbox proposals by the CMA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK’s data protection regulator.

Collaboration between competition and data protection watchdogs was a significant development because it directly acknowledges the blurring line between power brokers and data brokers in the tech sector.

Playing ball

Broadly, Google has committed to involving both the UK’s CMA and the ICO as it works towards killing cookies in its browser. The CMA will now launch a review as to whether to accept Google’s proposed commitments, which would be legally binding and apply globally. Companies have until July 8 to submit their comments.

Specifically, Google has pledged not to discriminate against its rivals in favor of its own advertising and ad tech businesses when designing or operating alternatives to third-party cookies.

It will develop its sandbox proposals in a way that “avoids distortions” to competition and the imposition of unfair terms on Chrome users. The CMA and ICO will play a role in helping to design the proposals.

Google will also provide “increased transparency” into how and when the proposals will be implemented and on what basis they will be assessed – including a commitment to publicly disclose the results of any tests into the effectiveness of alternative technologies in the sandbox.

Earlier this year there was a big dustup about Google’s claims that advertisers can expect to see at least 95% of the conversions per dollar spent on campaigns that use Federated Learning of Cohorts when compared to cookie-based advertising.

Several members of the World Wide Web Consortium’s Improving Web Advertising Business Group called foul (fowl?) and demanded that the Google Ads team share more information about its testing methods.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Eventually, Google admitted that its FLoC experiment did rely on real-time access to cross-site publisher data and frequency capping tied to cookies which, incidentally, will not be available once third-party cookies are fully phased out in Chrome.

In addition to greater transparency into its Privacy Sandbox, Google agreed to place “substantial limits” on the use of browsing data for the purposes of digital advertising after the removal of third-party cookies – aka, an effort to avoid an all-for-me-and-none-for-thee scenario that would put ad-supported publishers at a disadvantage.

Healthy skepticism

In a blog post, Google’s director of legal, Oliver Bethell, reiterated that once third-party cookies are gone, Google’s own ad products will not access data from any user-facing Google products  in order to target or measure ads, including synced Chrome browsing histories or publisher data from Google Analytics.

Google will give the CMA at least 60 day of notice before flipping the switch and removing third-party cookies so that the regulator can make sure everything looks kosher. If the CMA does uncover any issues that can’t be resolved, it will have time to reopen its investigation and impose interim measures to protect competition.

Bethell emphasized that Google plans to “engage with the CMA and the industry in an open, constructive and continuous dialogue,” including proactively informing both the regulator and the wider ecosystem about timelines, changes and testing of the Privacy Sandbox proposals.

Still, some are taking Google’s commitments with a grain of salt.

“I hope Google genuinely changes their behavior and uses this as an opportunity to engage rather than lecture,” said James Rosewell, CEO and founder of 51Degrees and director of Marketers for an Open Web (MOW), an industry group of digital marketing firms, advertisers and publishers that’s been lobbying against Google’s approach to the forthcoming cookie changes.

(MOW filed the original complaint with the CMA late last year that triggered the investigation into the Privacy Sandbox and led to this current agreement.)

“The advertising and publishing industry needs to recognize this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop open solutions that provide people with privacy and choice,” Roswell said. “Change was always going to happen – now we have ‘adult supervision.’”

This isn’t the only legal agreement Google made this week keeping Google’s lawyers busy.

On Monday, Google agreed to pay a nearly $270 million fine and make changes to its advertising business in order to settle an anticompetition case in France, where Google was dinged for unfairly promoting its own services in the online advertising sector.

Must Read

People Inc.'s Patrick McCarthy (right) chats with Mula's Jason White at AdMonsters' Sell Side Summit Austin.

For Publishers, AI Gives Monetizable Data Insight But Takes Away Traffic

Traffic-starved publishers are hopeful that their long-undervalued audience data will fuel advertising’s automated future – if only they can finally wrest control of the industry narrative away from ad tech middlemen.

Q3: The Trade Desk Delivers On Financials, But Is Its Vision Fact Or Fantasy?

The Trade Desk posted solid Q3 results on Thursday, with $739 million in revenue, up 18% year over year. But the main narrative for TTD this year is less about the numbers and more about optics and competitive dynamics.

Comic: He Sees You When You're Streaming

IP Address Match Rates Are a Joke – And It’s No Laughing Matter

According to a new report, IP-to-email matches are accurate just 16% of the time on average, while IP-to-postal matches are accurate only 13% of the time. (Oof.)

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Comic: Gamechanger (Google lost the DOJ's search antitrust case)

The DOJ And Google Sharpen Their Remedy Proposals As The Two Sides Prepare For Closing Arguments

The phrase “caution is key” has become a totem of the new age in US antitrust regulation. It was cited this week by both the DOJ and Google in support of opposing views on a possible divestiture of Google’s sell-side ad exchange.

create a network of points with nodes and connections, plain white background; use variations of green and grey for the dots and the connctions; 85% empty space

Alt Identity Provider ID5 Buys TrueData, Marking Its First-Ever Acquisition

ID5 bought TrueData mainly to tackle what ID5 CEO Mathieu Roche calls the “massive fragmentation” of digital identity, which is a problem on the user side and the provider side.

CTV Manufacturers Have A New Tool For Catching Spoofed Devices

The IAB Tech Lab’s new device attestation feature for its Open Measurement SDK provides a scaled way for original device manufacturers to confirm that ad impressions are associated with real devices.