?? Consentsgiving

?? Consentsgiving

Lucid Privacy Group Lucid Privacy Group

Lucid Privacy Group

Trusted Global Privacy Specialists for Data-Driven Companies

发布日期: 2024年11月27日
+ 关注

Lucid folks,

Few issues garner as much debate at the #privacypro dinner table as the issue of user consent -- where it’s overused as a legal basis, whether those who get it at scale cheat, and which data uses should just be banned through a democratic process. As we give thanks to you, our readers, this Thanksgiving, we return once more to this complex topic. Because, Meta. And because privacy regulators do need to talk turkey with publishers and their competition counterparts.?

In this op-ed issue:

  • Publishers on ‘Consent or Pay’ and contextual ads
  • Meta’s Consent or Pay concession, in context
  • The CMP market is booming

…and more.

From our grateful bullpen to your screens,

Colin O'Malley & Lucid Privacy Group Team

With Alex Krylov (Editor/Lead Writer), Ross Webster (Writer, EU & UK), Raashee Gupta Erry (Writer, US & World), McKenzie Thomsen, CIPP/US (Writer, Law & Policy)

?? If this is the first time seeing our Privacy Bulletin in your feed, give it a read and let us know what you think. For more unvarnished insights, visit our Blog.

Your comments and subscriptions are welcome!

How Publishers Really Feel About CoP and Contextual Ads

The 'Consent or Pay' (CoP or PUR) model has emerged as large European online platforms responded to regulatory requirements that mandate giving users an equally easy option to reject personalized advertising as to accept it.

Continuing to face market pressures and significant differences in revenue between known and unknown users, publishers have partnered with platforms like Content Pass to encourage users to accept personalized advertising.

The judgement of EDPBmon

The European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB) proposal that Meta users should be able to choose between (a) consenting to a ‘freemium’ service funded through personalized ads, (b) paying a subscription fee for a service with no/few ads, or (c) consenting to a ‘freemium’ service, but with contextual ads, and Meta’s move to introduce (d) has had a mixed reaction from industry.

  • While the EDPB views contextual targeting (based on webpage content rather than user profiles) as a viable alternative, many websites continue to disagree, and strongly so.
  • As we highlighted last December, news and current affairs sites face unique challenges, as advertisers traditionally avoid placing contextual ads next to sensitive news content.
  • News outlets have started to immunize themselves against this bias, but the fact remains that ‘contextual’ is not the panacea regulators and advocates set it out to be.

Survey says

To put these sentiments into clearer focus, the IAB Europe conducted a survey of over 50 publishers on these and related issues.?

  • Nearly 75% lack confidence in contextual advertising's effectiveness compared to personalized advertising.
  • 58% currently use a Consent or Pay model
  • 60% derive over half their revenue from personalized advertising
  • 66% use both contextual and personalized targeting
  • 62% anticipate revenue drops exceeding 20% if forced to use exclusively contextual advertising

Editor's note:?As of this writing, the survey has not yet been made public. However, we received permission from the IAB EU to preview the report and cite its key findings. You can, however, read the IAB EU's whitepaper on the EDPB's CoP work, here.

Looking forward

It is unlikely that the regulators are going to allow online media to be an exception to the law.

Yet, a balance must be struck between enforcing the principles of European data protection law and the need for journalism to remain viable (and to the extent possible, independent).

A reasonable solution will likely lie in Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for ROI measurement.?

This will require coordinated industry action, potentially led by organizations like the IAB Tech Lab, to avoid fragmentation. But also legislative efforts to protect news margins from predatory platform and now AI practices. We’ve said it once and will say it again: a middle path is there, but only if all sides want it.

-RW

"Up a creek without a CoP paddle" / Alex Krylov via MS Creator

Meta’s ‘Less Personalized’ Ads Choice is Still a Tax on Consumers

Meta's latest attempt to appease EU regulators comes in the form of a new ad-supported tier for Facebook and Instagram. The morph is a response to continued criticism of Meta's ‘Consent or Pay’ (CoP) approach to data monetization.

  • As a reminder, as of?December 2023, due to a chain of complaints and binding regulatory opinions, Meta can no longer rely on Contractual Necessity and Legitimate Interests legal bases for profile-based ad targeting. It’s been ‘Consent or Else’ for the social network ever since.

What they said: Meta says it responded to “demands from EU regulators" and has gone the extra mile beyond what they believe EU law actually requires.

  • Meta’s new non-personalized ad option will use "significantly less data" than fully personalized ads, but not no personal data. IP addresses are still needed to direct ads to the correct geo-market and to cap served ads of any type.
  • Max Schrems, chair of noyb, criticizes the "less personalized" ads for being full-screen and unskippable. He compares this approach to "freemium" gaming apps that bombard users with disruptive ads to pressure them into either paying for a subscription or accepting personalized advertising.?
  • Peter Craddock, privacy counsel for adtech companies, criticized the EDPB for making contextual advertising sound like an “obligation to conduct a business in a particular way, no matter the profits, to satisfy regulators and campaigners.

Why it matters: Meta’s legal tribulations and new commitment can be seen as a very public display of digestion of a commercial model which, ironically, originated with EU news publishes whose lunch was, over the years, eaten by Meta and Google.?

  • The pro-business side of the stage sees Meta’s shift as a reasonable concession and commercially in line with other multi-tier subscription models such those offered by YouTube and EU-born Spotify .
  • The pro-advocacy side remains skeptical whether any such choice can be truly “free”, even if admitting that Meta is moving in the right direction.?
  • Meanwhile, as the EDPB prepares to issue follow-up guidance on CoP by Small Tech, news publishers in the mezanine wonder when the other shoe will drop for them.

Between the lines: The years-long kabuki play has political implications for all actors, rightfully worried about Europeans (read, voters) reacting negatively to potentially losing, by regulatory fiat, the ‘free’ content and services they quite like.

Dash of spice:?

  • “I agree that 'less personalized' is 'less illegal' - but this does not mean Meta is now acting 'legal'. It is like being proud of selling 'less drugs'." — Max Schrems
  • "‘Freedom to conduct a business’ suddenly sounds like ‘obligation to conduct a business in a particular way, no matter the profits, to satisfy regulators and campaigners." — Peter Craddock

Zooming out: It isn’t that Meta’s offer of less personalized ads isn’t progress -- it is, even with unskippable ones. But the ongoing dance around the CoP model and 'fair choice' begs an uncomfortable question: do we, as users, even know what progress looks like anymore?

  • As discussed by Prof. Daniel Solove, consent is a “murky” concept overused by law- and policymakers, creating the very compliance theater for some and existential tug-of-war for others Meta’s CoP saga exemplifies.
  • To elbow in a quote from another professor, this time?Scott Galloway, “Choice is a tax on time and attention… Consumers don’t want more choice, but more confidence in the choices presented” to them.

At the end of the day, Meta's concession is yet another regulated choice screen for users to rush through, overpriced latte in hand.

-AK

Other Happenings

Another stretch, another busy news cycle. Here's what caught our attention this time.

  1. Consent At Scale Through a Tool for Sale. The privacy management software market is booming, growing at over 14% annually and projected to hit $31 billion by 2032. Why? Businesses are scrambling to scale consent handling and meet global privacy regulations. The irony? Consent fatigue being real… and being lectured about it by privtech vendors who pop their own consent prompt before you can read any of it.
  2. Target’s BIPA Class Action Moves Forward. Target faces a class-action lawsuit for allegedly collecting biometric data through security cameras without customer consent, violating Illinois’ strict privacy laws. The company claims the data was for theft prevention, not misuse, but that defense skirts the need for transparency where particularly sensitive and increasingly regulated facial recognition data is concerned. The judge agreed.
  3. Hardware Chain Dinged for Biometric Data Faux Pas. Australia’s privacy commissioner ruled that Bunnings’ use of facial recognition tech for security and theft prevention breached privacy laws. Bunnings defended it as necessary, but the move feels more Orwellian than neighborly. A hardware chain that sells "build-it-yourself" freedom to customers didn’t bother seeking proper consent before collecting biometric data.
  4. LinkedIn Deploys Kid Ban Boredom Defense. LinkedIn told Australian lawmakers it’s too dull for kids to be included in a proposed under-16 social media ban. While Meta, TikTok, and others fiercely oppose the legislation, LinkedIn claims its lack of appeal to minors exempts it from scrutiny. A specialized LinkedIn for teens and their educators is not a terrible idea. But in a world where platforms scramble to capture youth attention and legislators look to crack down, ‘for the children’, LinkedIn’s defense tactic is understandable?too. Now, anyone for ISO?creating a boredom badge of?compliance?

-AK

Lucid Resources

要查看或添加评论，请登录

Lucid Privacy Group的更多文章