The Competition and Markets Authority should “impose a formal restraining order” on Google over its intentions to replace third-party cookies, according to the Movement for an Open Web.
According to the group, which includes advertisers, publishers, and tech companies, Google’s engineers discovered that if it “removes ‘third-party’ cookies used by businesses without an adequate replacement,” most of the world’s top 500 publishers would lose more than 50% of their revenue, with some losing more than 75%.
“As news publishers increasingly rely on digital advertising for revenue, this is equal to a huge danger to journalism.”
The CMA responded by stating that Google is meant to be presenting an alternative to third-party cookies, which allow marketers to deliver consumers better-focused adverts.
“The study MOW cites based on the removal of third-party cookies (TPCs) used by businesses ‘without a sufficient replacement,'” a CMA representative stated.
“The CMA is looking at Google’s plans to replace TPCs and other functions with a set of improvements known as the Privacy Sandbox proposals, which include a number of adjustments.”
“Google has offered us updated undertakings to resolve the CMA’s competition concerns, which, if accepted, would be legally enforceable.”
However, Tim Cowen, MOW’s legal counsel and chair of the antitrust practice at boutique law firm Preiskel & Co, told Press Gazette that Google has yet to provide a specific solution for cookies in its proposed Privacy Sandbox.
“More than a year ago, Google presented a phenomenon called FloC [Federated Learning of Cohorts] as a viable alternative. And when it didn’t work, they gave up. As a result, there’s nothing out there.
“At this point, Google has proposed undertakings to the CMA... What the undertakings do is establish a framework for the CMA to monitor anything Google comes up with in the future — if it comes up with [an alternative] at all.”
Cowen, on the other hand, contends that this is insufficient.
Also, Read NEWSOM PROPOSES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST RETAIL CRIME
“You are free to have your lengthy conversation as long as you have frozen the status quo. It’s a common legal procedure to issue an injunction, which effectively freezes the crime scene while the police investigate. That’s exactly what’s required.”
MOW was not necessarily advocating for the merits of cookies themselves, according to Cowen.
“Discrimination is something we oppose.” What Google is doing is distinguishing between two types of objects: those it utilizes and those it does not.
“Now, if someone declares that no one receives cookies, everyone will be thrilled.” So we’re not implying that the cookie is the finest thing on the planet…
“What we’d want to see is open options freely enabled by individuals in an open marketplace, which means they shouldn’t have to deal with a monopolist telling them, ‘You have to sign up to get to where they want to go on the internet.”
According to the MOW, Google is placing itself and other major firms at a disadvantage by proposing to maintain first-party cookies — those set directly by a website — but not those created by third-party sites.
“If you’re Etsy or a newspaper, you probably host a lot of ads from people who don’t have the same domain as you.”
“If you’re part of the same business group — for example, if you’re Google and have YouTube and a slew of other domains… Then under the new planned system, that won’t be blocked.”
“However, if you’re a tiny company network or a little firm that hosts other people’s websites or advertising – a major problem.”
Last month, Google agreed to let the CMA review its Privacy Sandbox plans.
In June, the California business said that it would put cookies on hold until late 2023, citing the need for “additional time throughout the ecosystem to do this right.”
Follow us on Twitter
Also, Read Marion County Senators Unveil Crime-Fighting Legislation
