Google's Privacy Sandbox Ad-tracking Overhaul Clears Major Regulatory Hurdle

Google's plan to phase out third-party cookies and replace them with a bundle of new standards referred to as the "Privacy Sandbox" just overcame a key regulatory hurdle. From a report: The UK's competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has formally accepted Google's commitments about how it'll develop the new standards so they don't harm competition or unfairly benefit the search giant's own advertising business, the regulator announced today. Google's plans are still in flux, and it's not yet clear exactly what technologies Privacy Sandbox will use to replace third-party cookies. Just last month, Google abandoned one planned approach, FLoC, in favor of a new system called Topics API. Today's approval is for Google's approach, rather than any one specific technology. The regulator notes that in the next phase it will "supervise Google to ensure the Privacy Sandbox is developed in a way that benefits consumers."

So how do I block FLoC ?

[Alain Williams]

Will NoScript to stop any google javascript be enough ?

Re:

[Merk42]

I know it's too much to ask to read the summary, but FLoC is no more. You should be asking about "Topics API".

Re:

[Waccoon]

FLoC is no more... until the next time they re-invent it, that is.

Re:

[Tokolosh]

Don't use Chrome, for a start.

Another reason to ditch google.

[Revek]

Lets face it google went evil quite a while back. Not the evil of some mastermind but the evil of committee.

"developed in a way that benefits consumers"

[93 Escort Wagon]

For sufficiently loose definitions of the word "benefits".

Re:

[plate_o_shrimp]

"Consumer" in this context means ad-buyers....

Oh, please!...

[jenningsthecat]

The UK's competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has formally accepted Google's commitments about how it'll develop the new standards so they don't harm competition or unfairly benefit the search giant's own advertising business...

Why in hell would anybody accept commitments from Google? That's almost as stupid as believing anything said by Facebook.

Re:

[HiThere]

Well, since the UK departed from the EU their bargaining position has gotten a lot weaker, and their government was already more in favor of surveillance by non-governmental entities. So that they would accept a deal with Google is quite predictable, even if it appears to be a bad deal. (What are the specifics? What are the enforcement capabilities?)

My guess is that they accepted commitments from Google in the hope of getting some taxable investments.

ha it's the UK

[Growlley]

benefiting the people ( as opposed to the consumer - ie. google and advertisers) will be as far down the list as if it was American bought and paid for laws.

tangential...

[jm007]

many companies have some sort of onboarding in which new employees are introduced to the company, maybe going over a bit of background, history, policies, culture, etc

so if anyone here knows, does google do this?

and if so, during the 'company history' part, how is the 'Do No Evil' creed handled? is it ignored? mentioned briefly but brushed aside? no doubt they've put their best PR spinners on it to dodge any real issues

it was such a big deal for them back then but now.... well they did do away with it so