Google’s Privacy Sandbox has been promoted by Google as a response to consumer demand for more private internet experiences. We would argue that Google fails to deliver even this but, supposing that it does, what is the size of the problem Google is proposing to address? Surveys conducted by the CMA, IAB and others find that most consumers are not really concerned about the use of non-personal or non-sensitive information for data-driven advertising.
According to research by Verian for the CMA, only 13% of Chrome users (and 18% of Safari users) mentioned privacy as a consideration when choosing their mobile browser, while just 19% want to limit Personal Data handling. Furthermore, the IAB found that only 1% of consumers felt that ad targeting was a priority concern and nearly 70% would prefer to provide data, including Personal Data, rather than pay for content.
Google’s Sandbox is looking to upend the entire digital advertising ecosystem to meet this minority need. Instead of narrowly focusing on the types of data that cause a high likelihood of concern (Personal Data and sensitive information), Google proposes to treat all data as if it posed the same risk. Well, almost all data, as it explicitly exempts its own “first party” use. The technology fails to cater for a huge range of standard advertising and publisher use cases whilst its systems intend to introduce a plethora of new consent boxes, which have already been recognised by the CMA as adding ‘consent sludge’ into people’s online experiences.
What’s more, Sandbox doesn’t even answer some of the true privacy worries that consumers have in the real world. Perhaps the most commonly voiced concern from the average consumer is that retargeted ads that follow them around the web are ‘creepy’. This is perhaps understandable, but Sandbox is designed to facilitate this very use case via its Protected Audience API.
The fact is that Google’s Sandbox is a disproportionate response to the level of consumer concern. If it genuinely answered a consumer need then Google might be able to argue that any anti-competitive outcomes were justified. However, in the absence of addressing this concern one is easily convinced of the DOJ’s argument that Google is merely using “privacy” as a pretextual excuse to continue its anti-competitive conduct. In short, Google crushing competition is a feature, not a bug.
If Google is to proceed with the Sandbox then it must do so in a way that reflects the important minority interest of concerned consumers, and doesn’t place unnecessary restrictions on rival publishers’ own ability to compete against Google. Indeed, in Incognito Mode Chrome already has a model that offers users enhanced privacy for those that want it. For the majority of web users who are relatively unconcerned about personalisation or the use of non-sensitive data, Google should be prevented from interfering with their enjoyment of the web as they want and cease their mission to restrict innovation and communication of rival publisher’s interactions with their visitors.