{"id":8302,"date":"2021-04-20T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-04-20T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=8302"},"modified":"2021-04-17T04:05:18","modified_gmt":"2021-04-17T04:05:18","slug":"googles-self-regulation-privacy-triumph-or-antitrust-dodge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/googles-self-regulation-privacy-triumph-or-antitrust-dodge\/","title":{"rendered":"Google’s Self-Regulation: Privacy Triumph or Antitrust Dodge?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Have you ever googled a gift only to have the future recipient see it later advertised on your web-browser? Chances are your covert efforts fell victim to third-party cookies<\/a> \u2013 or bits of data that your computer receives when browsing websites, that are then stored on your web-browser to track your online activity. These \u201ctracking cookies\u201d are typically used for online advertisements and are responsible for those targeted and eerily-individualized ads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although individualized Google Ads have certainly been a cause for concern<\/a> for more than just ruining surprises, it seems at least some of those concerns may be short-lived, since Google recently<\/a> announced that it will no longer be selling ads based on users\u2019 specific browsing data. Instead, targeted individualized ads will be replaced with Google\u2019s new \u201cPrivacy Sandbox<\/a>\u201d that will create \u201ca new way for businesses to reach people with relevant content and ads by clustering large groups of people with similar interests.\u201d In this \u201cPrivacy Sandbox,\u201d third-party cookies<\/a> would be replaced with a clustering algorithm that groups users by interests so that individual users\u2019 data stay private on their web-browser. This proposed change is significant, given that Google currently controls over 50%<\/a> of the online advertisements, and could have profound impact on the future of data privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, Google\u2019s switch to a \u201cPrivacy Sandbox\u201d sounds like a triumph for users everywhere. Without third-party tracking cookies, advertisers will no longer have cumulative data on individual users<\/a>, such as an individual\u2019s age, gender, and particular search history. Although advertisers would still have access to data of a \u201ccohort<\/a>,\u201d the idea is that individuals\u2019 privacy is more protected because it would be lost in the digital crowd. One would hope that Google\u2019s increased commitment to anonymizing users\u2019 data would also extend to other aspects of sharing user data that have been criticized in the past, such as allegedly selling access<\/a> to millions of users\u2019 photos and WhatsApp messages to Facebook, or continuing to collect users\u2019 data while they browse in the private<\/a> \u201cIncognito\u201d mode. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, Google\u2019s new privacy rollout could further reinforce its online advertising monopoly and create a trickle-down effect in market competition for businesses that rely on online advertising. For example, many are concerned that Google\u2019s new model<\/a> would effectively give Google a greater monopoly on first-party data (i.e., individual users\u2019 data) to target users more precisely. If Google only provides \u201ccohort\u201d data to advertisers, smaller companies that have relied on third-party cookies to track and target individual users may be inherently disadvantaged<\/a> when promoting their products compared to larger companies that already collect plenty of their own first-party data. In fact, the U.K.\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority has already begun formally investigating<\/a> Google\u2019s planned cookie-removal, which Google has promoted as an enhanced commitment to consumer privacy, as a covert form of anticompetitive behavior to control the online advertising market. Considering that Google is already facing multiple lawsuits<\/a> in state and federal courts for its alleged anticompetitive practices in online search and advertisement industries, it seems reasonable to wonder whether Google\u2019s \u201cPrivacy Sandbox\u201d is just a clever tactic to leverage its stronghold in online advertising, under the guise of consumer privacy protection, in order to dodge antitrust scrutiny and regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although individualized Google Ads have certainly been a cause for concern<\/a> for more than just ruining surprises, it seems at least some of those concerns may be short-lived, since Google recently<\/a> announced that it will no longer be selling ads based on users\u2019 specific browsing data.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of the motives behind Google\u2019s new privacy plan, the question remains as to whether the fate of users\u2019 data should ultimately be up to Google at all. While it may be encouraging to see Google engage in self-regulation of its own use of consumer data, not all countries leave the allocation of consumer data up to Big Tech. For example, the Australian<\/a> Competition and Consumer Commission is proposing a regulatory plan that would allow users to limit the data that Google can share for advertising purposes, in hopes that putting the power to share data back into the users\u2019 hands will help promote competition and curb Google\u2019s online advertising monopoly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, Google\u2019s dominance in online advertising and seeming-monopoly over consumer data appears to be a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem. Google dominates online advertising because of (to some degree) its massive cache<\/a> of consumer data, and Google has a massive cache of consumer data because it dominates<\/a> online search platforms. While there is no question as to the utility the suite<\/a> of Google products supplies to consumers, it seems that increased<\/a> government regulation over consumer data privacy could help curb some of Google\u2019s alleged anticompetitive practices, simultaneously making room for more online ad market competition and consumer choice. Consumer data privacy should not be Google\u2019s choice by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alexandra Farquhar<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Have you ever googled a gift only to have the future recipient see it later advertised on your web-browser? Chances are your covert efforts fell victim to third-party cookies \u2013 or bits of data that your computer receives when browsing websites, that are then stored on your web-browser to track your online activity. These \u201ctracking …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":8349,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8302"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8302"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8302\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8351,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8302\/revisions\/8351"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8349"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}