The Monopoly Report

A special "holiday" thanks to my friends at AdExchanger for highlighting my recent The Monopoly Report article on GPC Signals in their news of the week piece - link below. Global Competition Control Global Privacy Control (GPC) is anti-competitive, argues privacy attorney Alan Chapell in his Monopoly Report newsletter. But, he adds, GPC is also the future of online privacy. GPC lets users opt out of targeted advertising using a single universal signal that must be honored across platforms, web browsers and ad tech.  But in practice, only a few web browsers currently support GPC, including Brave, DuckDuckGo and Firefox. Chrome, Safari and Edge do not. However, starting next year, browsers must provide GPC opt-outs to comply with the California Opt Me Out Act. And, Chapell predicts, regulators will likely push CTV and mobile platforms to also adopt GPC. But Chapell sees GPC as a way for browsers to lock users into their own ad products under the guise of privacy if they enable GPC by default. And most browsers have their own ad products these days. For example, Brave blocks ads on publisher sites and instead features its own search and display ads, which it argues are more privacy-safe since user data isn’t tracked by any entity other than the browser. Every browser could copy this model using GPC as justification. Some states recognize the potential conflict of interest, with Colorado and Connecticut passing laws against browsers enabling GPC by default. Chapell advocates for California to join the club before its new law goes into effect.

I'm no longer single, but I'm sure this is also great for dating apps. Nothing better than facing down the look of disappointment when someone meets "regular" me after viewing multiple pix of "super-hot" me.

Is the Global Privacy Control anti-competitive? Given all we've learned over the last ten years about the economics of browsers, it is huge mistake to require the marketplace to support these signals without setting up competitive guard rails. To date, California has taken the lead on advocating for and requiring GPC as a privacy tool. But California has not taken any steps to ensure that browsers don't use GPC as a way to preference browser monetization tools. Other states (e.g., CT, CO) have done taken steps to ensure anti-preferencing and/or to ensure that those tools don't create a back door opt-in consent standard. To their credit, CalPrivacy has an open comment period where they will receive input on this and other issues. Pls check out this week's The Monopoly Report newsletter for more info....

Alan Chapell of Chapell & Associates joins Michael Racic and Garrett McGrath of Prebid.org for a timely discussion on how a post-Google remedies landscape could shape auctions, interoperability, and publisher choice.

I'm in between speaking slots at the amazing Prebid.org Ascent in London today, but wanted to share a fantastic discussion I had with Allison Schiff at AdExchanger about a topic that hits much closer to home. Allison and I talk about the recent Dept of Homeland Security RFI and the industry's collective lack of response. The people formerly known as "the tinfoil hat" folks have a point - and many within the ads space are now decidedly part of the problem. It's a fantastic discussion.

Thanks to team Marketecture Media for publishing my piece in agentic's big gaping regulatory hole. we touched on a good deal of this in The Monopoly Report podcast episode with Anthony Katsur. Links below. PS see you in London!!!