Google Antitrust Suit Takes Aim At Chrome's Privacy Sandbox

AmiMoJo shares a report from The Verge: State antitrust watchdogs are targeting Google's plans to phase out third-party tracking cookies, building on a major lawsuit filed last year. The group of 15 attorneys general, led by Texas, updated its complaint about Google yesterday to include a more detailed case against the search giant, including new claims about Google's strategic use of the Chrome browser. In particular, the new complaint takes aim at recent privacy updates to Chrome, which could better protect users' personal data while also entrenching Google's market position.

Like the original Texas complaint, Tuesday's updated filing primarily focuses on Google's technology for targeting ads across the web. The attorneys general argue that Google used its power in search, streaming video, and other markets to stamp out independent advertising platforms, forcing small businesses and media outlets to use its system. But in the updated complaint, the states apply this argument to Google's 'Privacy Sandbox' -- a tool that's supposed to replace invasive third-party tracking cookies with a more limited system devised by Google. "Google's new scheme is, in essence, to wall off the entire portion of the internet that consumers access through Google's Chrome browser," the complaint reads. "Google is trying to hide its true intentions behind a pretext of privacy," the suit continues. With Privacy Sandbox, "Google does not actually put a stop to user profiling or targeted advertising -- it puts Google's Chrome browser at the center of tracking and targeting."

In response, Google said the new allegations rested on a misunderstanding of Chrome's privacy features. "Attorney General Paxton's latest claims mischaracterize many aspects of our business, including the steps we are taking with the Privacy Sandbox initiative to protect people's privacy as they browse the web. These efforts have been welcomed by privacy advocates, advertisers and our own rivals as a step forward in preserving user privacy and protecting free content. We will strongly defend ourselves from AG Paxton's baseless claims in court."

Re: Self serving

[MysteriousPreacher]

This is not about users. This is about advertisers, and they necessarily have to go where their target demographic goes. Itâ(TM)s not like they can simply switch to Opera any more than they could switch their GPU adverts from Anandtech to Teen Vogue. That said, fuck everybody involved in this.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Google is building an alternative system called FLoC that is supposed to allow advertisers to target ads without tracking users, but it's a privacy nightmare and needs to be blocked as well.

A far more productive move would be to look at ways to fund the web without tracking. It's going to get blocked soon by all major browsers anyway.

Re:

[Canberra1]

Most users do not know about browser and hardware and IP fingerprints that Google uses/abuses? So even a VPN is no protection. Maybe tax authorities can levy a TAX on unique ID's transmitted outside state borders.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Do you have any evidence that Google uses hardware or browser fingerprinting?

I don't see why they would since they have plenty of other sources of data, and have in fact gone out of their way to frustrate those things in Chrome e.g. making Incognito Mode undetectable.

Besides which other browsers are blocking this stuff. Firefox does and I'm sure some of the Chrome clones are too.

How about X-Client-Data?

[martynhare]

When you have browser usage statistics enabled, that data is only sent to Google-owned websites and DOES allow for fingerprinting. Of course, you can just not enable said functionality at download/install time... but how many do you think didn't?

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

In GDPR countries they have to get opt in permission. I bet a lot of people say no.

Re:

[micheas]

Given most of them are in breach of GDPR with the tracking they do anyway then frankly, who gives a fuck about them? They have no legal exemption to break the law, so it's good they're being held to account.

It's worth noting this change doesn't prevent them advertising. It just prevents them building profiles on people and targeting that advertising based on profiling, it just means their ads will be less intrusive and less abusive. That's a good thing.

Not necessarily less intrusive and abusive.

That was a huge part of what made google's targeted ads appealing in the first place was that they weren't obnoxious things.

There is a lot of handwaving over how bad the alternatives to Google were and why we moved away from them. Not there couldn't be something better.

Deceptive weasel words - add selectivitly in there

[Canberra1]

By using weasel working and making different qualified claims, both could be construed as correct. Lots of dumb people don't spot misleading PR claims for what they are. See what a difference it makes when reworded to selective privacy. "These efforts have been welcomed by privacy advocates, advertisers and our own rivals as a step forward in preserving user privacy and protecting free content" Now that line needs careful deconstruction. and the privacy advocated named, although I doubt it will include the EFF. Now if Google added to facility to completely, under user control, turn off all tracking, then their claims might be closer. However one believes this is NOT an option. As such the 'enhancement' only disables third party tracking, unless they agree to pay Google something for access . Now as all the selectivity is almost all benefits Google, the lawsuit seems on the mark.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Fuzi719]

Can you point to where on this doll The Google hurt you? You people keep harping on all the "harm" Google is doing, but where is this harm? Where have you, personally, been harmed by Google? Anyone? Ken Paxton is a self-serving idiot, and all who join him in this Quixotic quest are just as idiotic.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[huckda]

I've read every comment and didn't see the word 'harm' used other than in your post twice, are you projecting?
Your personal opinion about Ken Paxton has no bearing on the legitimacy of the lawsuit being discussed, try a concrete logical argument based on the facts of the case and you might actually lend credence to your position.

Re:

[JasterBobaMereel]

It appears to be that the Google privacy will stop anyone but Google tracking me .... that's better then now
Just Windows only reports me to Microsoft ... I assume it did ...
And Apple tracks iPhone users ... but nobody else can

Google doesn't care about privacy one bit.

[fish_sauce]

If google cared about privacy they should have implemented protection against fingerprinting. If you check the crbug.com and search for fingerprinting you will find bug/request reports that are years old.

I reported an instant crash a while ago. It was fixed in 9 days!!! So they are on purpose ignoring requests from users to fix/add protection from fingerprinting.

Here's an example of chrome's default search engine setting:
As default in Chrome on install the default setting on the address bar is to send data