Home Privacy Here’s What The ANA Wants To See In A Federal Privacy Law

Here’s What The ANA Wants To See In A Federal Privacy Law

SHARE:

The unlikeliest folks are pushing to pass broad privacy regulations these days.

On Wednesday, the Association of National Advertisers, the largest ad trade org out there, urged the Federal Trade Commission to advocate for a national privacy law that preempts the regional laws cropping up all over the country.

The FTC is collecting comments in advance of a February hearing on consumer privacy and data security, part of an ongoing series of public hearings on related topics.

“We’ve been looking at the state privacy proposals being put forward and they’re inconsistent,” said Dan Jaffe, the ANA’s group EVP of government relations. “It would be hard for anyone, let alone small and medium-sized businesses, to comply with these inconsistent standards.”

Beyond the California Consumer Protection Act set to take effect at the beginning of 2020, which has garnered most of the headlines, a bunch of other states are working on legislation of their own, including Washington state, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Oregon. Not to mention the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe and evolving privacy rules in countries around the world, from Canada and Brazil to Japan and South Korea.

“We do not have a systematic approach that goes beyond the sector analysis,” Jaffe said. “This would be the US answer to what’s happening in the United States, a global approach to privacy in the United States.”

The ANA is proposing a framework it’s calling the “New Paradigm,” which, to boil it down, places data collection into three buckets: reasonable uses, unreasonable uses and gray area uses that aren’t obviously either reasonable or unreasonable at first blush.

A reasonable use of data might be, in the ANA’s view, the collection and use of non-sensitive data for advertising purposes, so long as consumers are given transparency, notice and choice.

Unreasonable uses would be the sorts of practices that are already verboten under sectoral laws, like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

For data practices that are on the fence, the ANA suggests applying a reasonableness test to see if they meet certain non-negotiable criteria. Does the practice harm or benefit consumers? Is there a risk to consumers in using the data? Does the usage fit with consumer expectations?

If all that sounds a little vague, that’s because the ANA is still working with its member companies and other industry groups and associations to hammer out the details.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

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

“When people start talking about privacy, it’s often an umbrella term and quite subjective, too,” Jaffe said. “We need to try and spell this out clearer so that it’s not based on what you feel in your gut. We’re trying to give people clear rules of the road, and that’s why we should have a national standard.”

But it’s not just the difficulty of having to comply with multiple privacy standards within the United States that the ANA and other trade bodies, like the 4As, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Network Advertising Alliance, object to; it’s the move away from a harm-based approach to privacy law, which is how the FTC currently approaches enforcement.

The California Consumer Protection Act, for example, prohibits a business from treating customers that opt out of data sharing any differently from those who don’t, which could have the unintended consequence of putting an end to loyalty programs, Jaffe said.

“I think the people in California are legitimately well intentioned, but we also have to set up a system that’s livable for businesses and consumers,” he said.

For the moment, that process includes lobbying, writing comment letters, more lobbying and a heck of a lot of meetings – and not just between members of the business community.

“If the consumer advocate and privacy community isn’t on board, this isn’t going to fly but we also don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater – and we acknowledge that there is bathwater here,” Jaffe said. “We all agree that there are problems and complexities, and that’s only become even more visible this year.”

Must Read

A comic depicting Judge Leonie Brinkema's view of the her courtroom where the DOJ vs. Google ad tech antitrust trial is about to begin. (Comic: Court Is In Session)

Your Day One Recap: DOJ vs. Google Goes Deep Into The Ad Tech Weeds

It’s not often one gets to hear sworn witnesses in federal court explain the intricacies of header bidding under oath. But that’s what happened during the first day of the Google ad tech-focused antitrust case in Virginia on Monday.

Comic: What Else? (Google, Jedi Blue, Project Bernanke)

Project Cheat Sheet: A Rundown On All Of Google’s Secret Internal Projects, As Revealed By The DOJ

What do Hercule Poirot, Ben Bernanke, Star Wars and C.S. Lewis have in common? If you’re an ad tech nerd, you’ll know the answer immediately.

shopping cart

The Wonderful Brand Discusses Testing OOH And Online Snack Competition

Wonderful hadn’t done an out-of-home (OOH) marketing push in more than 15 years. That is, until a week ago, when it began a campaign across six major markets to promote its new no-shell pistachio packs.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony of any government witnesses who aren’t economists or antitrust experts during the upcoming ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Execs Off the Stand In Its Upcoming Antitrust Trial

Google doesn’t want AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley – you know, the godfather of programmatic – to testify during its ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

How HUMAN Uncovered A Scam Serving 2.5 Billion Ads Per Day To Piracy Sites

Publishers trafficking in pirated movies, TV shows and games sold programmatic ads alongside this stolen content, while using domain cloaking to obscure the “cashout sites” where the ads actually ran.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Thanks To The DOJ, We Now Know What Google Really Thought About Header Bidding

Starting last week and into this week, hundreds of court-filed documents have been unsealed in the lead-up to the Google ad tech antitrust trial – and it’s a bonanza.