Google Backs Industry Bid To Protect Targeted Ads

cybersecurity reporter who reported on this story first. So Cardoke, many people may not be familiar with the California Consumer Privacy Act tell us what it aims to do. The c c p A is UH, California's response to GDPR in Europe, and what it would allow UH users in California to do is opt out of UH data aggregation

related to their idea entity. So, if you're browsing on the Internet and like a pair of boots on Amazon put them in your car, but don't buy them and go to another website and add follows you, this law would UH, as it currently stands, allow you to opt out of Google or other entities from following you around the Internet to advertise at you, and that applies to

multiple industries. And so what changes is Google looking for? Well, they're looking for an exemption to allow for continued targeted advertising and analysis of the data they collect while following you around the internet. Uh. They generate over of their revenue from uh AD sales and and so if they're no longer allowed to follow you and then also take that information, analyze it and sell it to a third party that could potentially impact their bottom one. Does that

defeat the whole purpose of the law? Consumer privacy folks certainly seem to think so. Uh. The lawmaker in Sacramento, her name is Hannaboth Jackson, who has been the face of the Consumer Privacy group, says that this exemption would drive a truck through the c c p A. There will be no point to it. So there were two years of debate over the c c p A from what I understand from your article. So what would the

procedure be to make changes at this late date? Yeah, So c c p A sort of came into clarity in the last three days of the two thousand eighteen legislative session. We're in that same period now in uh and there are a number of amendments on the table to tinker with the c c p A. That's what two thousand nineteen was all about. And so there are proposals from lawmakers on the table to make these tweaks before it kicks in, and we'll get clarity in the

next or thirty six hours. So then lawmakers would have to approve a new ccp A. No, they would have to approve a bill to amend the c c p A. They would have to prove approve new legislation to tweak the act that currently exists that kicks in on January one. How likely is that to happen on ad tech and target advertising? Extremely unlikely. Well, California's law, I mean, this is the first privacy law in the US that you know,

comprehensive sort of Will that be an example for other states? Absolutely? Absolutely. We know that Washington tried and failed to pass its own this year. Some of that was related to they don't know what what California is up to just yet. Um Nevada has explicitly stated that they want to know what happens in California before they push forward with their own.

We know Illinois has been a leader in privacy law. UM, and not just states, but Congress is having the same conversation in d C. And they're waiting to see what the benchmark set by California is before they push forward with any sort of legislation in one So certainly whatever California does will set the baseline for data privacy laws around the country. You spoke of California State Senator Jackson, she said that this could shift the c c p A,

could shift the balance of power in Sacramento. How so well, she says that over the last decade two decades, that the tech industry has been able to ensure that this wild West of deregulation remains the culture in Silicon Valley. And she argues that with this stepping stone of data privacy, you're creating an environment where where regulation can't be avoided any longer, and and Silicon Valley has to come to the table to discuss the rules of the game, which

she says haven't existed. And so that is the fundamental change that there will actually be conversations about regulation going forward instead of uh, no debate at all. UM. On the surface, you hear a lot from Google and other Internet companies about it's a good idea to respect privacy and to have this kind of legislation, but does it play out in reality? I mean that that is an

observation that we made in the story as well. Uh, you know, the talking points are are are fantastic, and h G DPRS is encouraged and welcomed and and other legislations are are a good idea. But you know, we see that Google has lobbied against this law in California. We see they've lobbied against a similar law in Washington, and they've tried to narrow a biometric law in Illinois

not once but twice. And so the question remains whether the talking points are going to materialize in something, uh in Congress or at these states beyond the lip service. And I think right now what you're seeing is uh that lobbyists are still being paid to protect the business model instead of data privacy. Does it seem though, as if there is a trend lately against tech, especially with

data privacy. And you just had Google paying a hundred and seventy million to settle claims that have violated children's privacy law, So is there is the tide turning against tech, at least temporarily. Well, I think you're seeing that in the fact that this amendment is unlikely to get anywhere. Uh. Nobody seems to want to carry the industry's water right now in Sacramento and be the face of the amendment

that allows big tech to continue to behave like big tech. Uh. And so yes, I think there does appear to be, at least in this current uh point in time, a question about whether you want to be the company that is pushing a loophole for Google to continue target advertising. Um. We heard a lot before the the g DPR as it was enacted in in Europe. Is there has there been that much of a problem with it, because we don't seem to be hearing as much about it, at

least I don't. Yeah. No, there've been a number of fines issued uh in Europe over a lack of compliance. Uh, It's it's been a year and a half and and so companies are pointing to that and saying, look, these aren't entities that are behaving maliciously. It just takes a long time to come to grips with what these laws

are are doing and how they're changing the game. And so that same question exists with c c p A and and industry lobbyist and attorneys believe that the language and c c p A is even more confusing and bigger than it is in GDPR. And so these same issues of compliance are going to to linger for extended periods of time, maybe years, until companies can figure out exactly how to fall into place. And so the Attorney General in California is going to be the one in

charge of enforcement. And it will undoubtedly be a question of whether or not UH companies that don't comply are penalized or if they're given some sort of um leeway to figure things out for extended period right, more battles ahead. Thank you so much, Cardike. That's cardke Mrotrie, the Bloomberg News cyber security reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg