← Back to context

Comment by turtletontine

5 days ago

Google gets no competitive advantage from removing third party cookies from chrome. The anticompetitive monopolistic tactic was the plan to replace third party cookies with FLoC/Privacy Sandbox/Topics AI, and THAT is what they were not prevented from doing.

No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies. Google is just unwilling to remove them without introducing a new anticompetitive tracking tool to replace them.

> No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies.

That's simply not true. As I already mentioned, the CMA presented a legal challenge which you can read about online. Please review the history, as it's been going on for years now.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-have-key-oversight...

https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/02/06/cma-cookies-goog...

  • The first link confirms exactly what I said above. They’re not preventing Google from removing third party cookies, they’re preventing Google from implementing ALTERNATIVES to third party cookies. The only reason Google is unwilling to straight up remove third party cookies is their business model.

      The CMA was concerned that, without regulatory oversight and scrutiny, Google’s alternatives could be developed and implemented in ways that impede competition in digital advertising markets. This would cause advertising spending to become even more concentrated on Google, harming consumers who ultimately pay for the cost of advertising. It would also undermine the ability of online publishers such as newspapers to generate revenue and continue to produce valuable content in the future.
    

    The second link does contain the phrase “cannot proceed with third-party cookie deprecation”, but it’s simply obvious that it’s not about third party cookies per se. It’s all about Google’s (unnecessary, anticompetitive, anti-user, anti-privacy) replacements for third party cookies.

      … report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments, the regulator has said that although the tech giant is so far complying with its demands, there remain considerable areas of concerns …
      …
      That it must not “design, develop or use the Privacy Sandbox proposals in ways that reinforce the existing market position of its advertising products and services, including Google Ad Manager“
      …
      It must also address issues with specific Sandbox tools such as how its Topics API targeting alternative can harm smaller tech business, and clarify who will govern the Topics API taxonomy.

    • It is true that the CMA is concerned with the new API proposals within the Privacy Sandbox such as Topics. However, this is from an anti-competitive angle, rather than privacy. Their goal is to ensure market fairness.

      As part of that same process, they have put considerable friction in place for removing third-party cookies. They've deemed that the removal of third-party cookies could give Google an unfair market advantage, and that is why they're concerned with finding an alternative solution to replace them. This has been a very slow process, and involves many discussions and debates with regulators. That has had significant influence on the design of the Topics API.

      To provide a more direct example, the CMA have also put specific stalls into the deprecation process, such as the standstill period invoked last year:

      > The CMA will start a formal review of Google’s plan to deprecate cookies and Chrome’s Privacy Sandbox replacements once Google triggers a 60-day standstill period, likely at the beginning of the third quarter. During this standstill, the tech giant is forbidden to put in motion any deprecation procedures on Chrome. ... If they can’t reach an agreement, the 60-day standstill period will become 120 days.

      https://www.adweek.com/programmatic/the-cma-is-prepared-to-d...

      To put it simply, third-party cookies would have been dead and buried long ago if this dispute were not happening. It may be possible for Google to remove third-party cookies without a replacement, but they'd have be risking a significant lawsuit and contravention of UK authority by doing so.