Technology
Google’s revised ad targeting plan raises fresh competition concerns in UK
What’s happening with Google’s long-heralded migration to an alternate ad tech stack (i.e. its Privacy Sandbox proposal)? What, indeed. The entire multi-year endeavor to remodel the industrial web looks perilously near death after the most recent intervention by the UK’s antitrust regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
This is in addition to the U-turn Google has made around third-party tracking cookies. Initially, they were speculated to be phased out; as of July, it looks just like the cookies are here to remain.
The CMA has been investigating Google’s Privacy Sandbox plan since January 2021, following a grievance filed in November 2020 by a coalition of digital marketing firms — which is one reason the project has been so painfully slow. But the slowness is beginning to seem like a firm “no” from the UK regulator.
IN case update The CMA threw Google one other wrench in the works on Tuesday, writing that it had “competition concerns” in regards to the latest versions. The tech giant’s previous commitments, which might also have to be updated to reflect “the evolution of Google’s planned Privacy Sandbox browser changes,” it said.
This means — at best — further delays in a project that has already exceeded its original schedule by several years.
The CMA said it was discussing the changes with Google, and that Google would want to handle its competition concerns — but it surely has not yet specified exactly which parts of the revised proposal still fall short. One thing is obvious, nevertheless: Google’s proposed move to a user selection architecture is on hold while the regulator considers the implications.
“If the CMA is unable to agree changes to the commitments with Google that address the competition concerns, then the CMA will consider what further action may be necessary,” the regulator also wrote, again without specifying what options might then be considered (note: Google has already agreed not to finish its tracking cookies without the CMA’s consent), adding that it “will conduct a public consultation before making any decision to accept changes to the commitments and intends to do so in the fourth quarter of 2024.”
The regulator plans to supply an update on what it calls its “views on Privacy Sandbox tools and an assessment of the results of testing and trials” in the ultimate quarter of the yr. So that clanking sound you may hear is the sound of a badly damaged can being kicked down the road again.
Ad Targeting: Who Has a Choice?
The CMA’s latest intervention follows a revised approach announced by Google this summer, when the tech giant suggested it would eliminate third-party tracking cookies altogether.
The implication of Google’s offer was also that its proposed selection architecture for Chrome could allow users to opt out of tracking-based personalized ads entirely — i.e., by offering a free selection to say “no” to such tracking (and, presumably, receive contextual ads as an alternative). Which could be great news for people’s privacy.
However, digital marketing corporations which have decided to dam opt-out of tracking cookies in Chrome are likely not in favor of giving web users such a big influence over internet advertising.
The CMA’s assessment of Privacy Sandbox is clearly conducted from a pure competition perspective – so its role is to pay particular attention to such complaints.
The competition watchdog declined to reply questions on its approach. However, we understand the CMA is anxious that Google’s revised plan to present users with selection could significantly reduce the provision of third-party cookies for ad targeting – resulting in increased reliance on alternatives equivalent to Google’s Privacy Sandbox tools.
If there’s a priority that Google could use the Privacy Sandbox project to further cement its dominant position in the ad tech industry — including by giving web users more freedom to guard their privacy from advertisers — that’s a competitive concern.
On privacy, the CMA has previously said it’s working with the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the regulator answerable for enforcing domestic data protection laws, to think about the relevant issues around privacy and user selection design. However, as now we have outlined previously, the ICO has a history of under-enforcing adtech regulations – despite recognising compliance issues.
The ICO’s recent actions in this area—pursuing certain kinds of non-compliant cookie consent pop-ups—have fueled the expansion of one other problematic type of evasion in the promoting industry: opt-in or pay mechanisms. This controversial approach, which is being challenged legally in the European Union, sees web users presented with a consent pop-up that blocks access to content until they accept tracking or pay a subscription fee to access the content. It is, in fact, the literal opposite of free selection.
And what has the ICO been doing about consent or payment? It consulted earlier this yr but has yet to take a public position on the legality of the controversial business model – allowing the privacy-hating mechanism to grow unchecked in the meantime.
All of which is to say that if the UK regulator is the very best hope for web users to fight for his or her privacy rights in the high-stakes battle for the long run of the industrial web – pitting Google against digital marketers and the CMA in their corner – then this doesn’t seem to be a good fight. It’s more like allowing competitors to dominate the hierarchy of interests.
Asked to answer the CMA’s latest intervention, Google spokeswoman Jo Ogunleye said the corporate was cooperating with regulators and believed its revised proposal was pro-competitive.
A press release from the corporate was also sent, saying: “We are working with the CMA on the Privacy Sandbox in line with the updated approach now we have recommend, which enables people to make informed decisions about how they browse the online. As we finalise this approach, we are going to proceed to seek the advice of with the CMA, the ICO and other regulators all over the world and stay up for continuing to work with the ecosystem to construct a personal, ad-supported web.”
We also asked for a response Lukasz Olejnikindependent consultant who has followed the Privacy Sandbox proposal from the outset. “Storing third-party cookies is detrimental to user well-being,” he warned, underlining a transparent change of direction by the CMA.
“I was extremely pleased with how professionally the CMA approached the migration to privacy-enhanced networks in a way that respected competition,” he also told TechCrunch. “However, over the past few months, I have seen a significant shift in enforcement priorities.”
Speculating on what may be driving the change, Olejnik noted that there had been a change of presidency in the UK – but said it was difficult to clarify why the regulator may need modified its priorities in this area.
“To date, the CMA has fully understood that third-party cookies are problematic for privacy, data protection and trust in the digital advertising sector,” he said, adding: “While I believe there would still be a business case for Privacy Sandbox, such a position could undermine the quality of privacy and trust in businesses for UK users.”
Technology
23andme customers informed about bankruptcy and potential claims – the deadline is July 14
23andme, an infinite of genetic tests, which has been priced on billions, is now moving in bankruptcy in chapter 11 and will notify an incredible deal of and an incredible deal of of current and former clients that they is perhaps entitled to make claims as a component of the restructuring process. The company and 11 of its subsidiaries, including Lemonaid Health and LPRXONE, submitted an application for bankruptcy protection on March 23 this yr in the eastern Missouri district. Customers were notified on Sunday to July 14 of July 14 about claims for losses.
Bankruptcy occurs after a storm of 18 months for 23ndme, marked with a decrease in sales, managerial departures and destructive violation of information, which violated confidential personal data of virtually 7 million users. Violation, publicly disclosed October 2023According to TechCrunch, names, birth years, relationship labels, DNA percentage, participation with relatives, ancestors’ reports and locations. Fallout caused many collective processes and a wave of distrust of customers, which seriously cuts the company coping with the company’s consumers.
Now customers that affected this violation – particularly imposed by 23andme that their information has been violated between May and October 2023 – they’ll submit so -called Civil security incident claim. Those who’ve suffered financial damage or others on account of the violation may make a claim inside the bankruptcy case. Customers with other varieties of complaints not related to cyber attack, paying homage to problems with the results of a DNA test or a teeth service in the company, can submit a separate claim in accordance with General bar date package.
Congress also expressed concerns about the consequences of bankruptcy privacy.
The fall of 23andme was fast by grace, and his misfortunes were intensified by her ambitious but expensive extension in digital health and telemedicine, including $ 400 million The takeover of Lemonaid Health in 2021 was originally aimed toward diversifying 23andme offers, apart from testing consumer DNA, movements tensed 23andme financial resources and didn’t provide the growth needed by the company.
Proposed settlement in the amount of $ 30 million in a related collective lawsuit over a cyber attack stays Due to bankruptcy proceedings. (23andme lawyers claim that the settlement is now disputed when the company is in bankrupt.) Customers who must handle up the right to compensation must provide formal evidence of the claim regardless of their participation in a collective motion.
TechCrunch contacted 23andme to comment.
TechCrunch event
Berkeley, California
|.
June 5
Book now
It was already a turbulent yr for the American semiconductor industry.
The semiconductor industry plays a major role in the “AI race”, which the US appears to be determined, so it’s value being attentive to this: from the appointment of Lip-Bu Tan-which has not waste time to work, attempting to revitalize the Heritage Company-Joe Biden proposing latest rules of exports AI AI along the way that would not or can follow.
Here’s what happened since the starting of the yr.
Power
Last reversal
May 7: Just every week before the “Frame of Artificial Intelligence Diffusion”. According to many media, including Axios AND BloombergThe administration won’t implement restrictions when it was to start out on May 15 and as a substitute works in its own framework.
April
Anthropic doubles the support of chip export restrictions
April 30: Anthropic has doubled because of the limitation of exports of chip systems in the USA, including several corrections to artificial intelligence framework, akin to imposing further restrictions in level 2 and dedication of resources to enforcement. The NVIDIA spokesman rejected, saying: “American companies should focus on innovations and get up to the challenge, instead of telling high stories that large, heavy and sensitive electronics are somehow smuggled in” Baby bugghs “or” next to the lobsters live “.
Planned exemptions at Intel
April 22: Before connecting profits with Q1, Intel said he was planning to release over 21,000 employees. The exemptions were to enhance management, something that the general director of Lip-Bu Tan has long said that Intel must do and help in the reconstruction of the company’s engineering.
The Trump administration further limits the chip export
April 15: The NVIDIA H20 AI chip was hit with the requirement of export license, the company revealed in the SEC application. The company added that it expects for $ 5.5 billion fees related to this latest requirement in the first quarter of the tax yr in 2026. H20 is the most advanced AI Nvidia chip can still export to China in some form or fashion. TSMC and Intel reported similar expenses in the same week.
TechCrunch event
Berkeley, California
|.
June 5
Book now
NVIDIA seems to talk of further export of chips
April 9: According to reports, the general director of Nvidia, Jensen Huang, was noticed for dinner at the Mar-A-Lago Center in Donald Trump. Then, NPR was reported Huang could have the ability to save lots of AI H20 NVIDIA systems from export restrictions after investing in AI data centers in the USA
Alleged agreement between Intel and TSMC
April 3: Intel and TSMC allegedly reached a preliminary agreement on the commencement of a joint project of Chips. This joint undertaking would work in Intel devices, and TSMC would have 20% shares in the latest undertaking. Both firms refused to comment or confirm. If this contract just isn’t accomplished, this might be a good preview of potential offers in this industry.
Intel rotates from non -corporate assets, proclaims a brand new initiative
April 1: CEO Lip-BU TAN immediately worked. Just just a few weeks after joining the Intel, the company announced that it might rotate resources unrelated to the core in order that it could focus. He also said that the company would introduce latest products, including non -standard semiconductors for purchasers.
March
Intel calls the latest CEO
March 12: Intel announced that a veteran of the industry and a former board member, Lip-Bu Tan will return to the company as general director on March 18. At the time of his appointment, Tan said that Intel could be a “engine -oriented company” under his leadership.
February
Intel’s Ohio Chip Plant is delayed again
February 28: This yr, Intel was to start out running its first chip factory in Ohio. Instead, the company slowed down the construction of the plant for the second time in February. Now the design of semiconductors value $ 28 billion won’t end with the construction until 2030 and might even open only in 2031.
Senators call for more chip export restrictions
February 3: US Senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), wrote a letter to the Secretary for Trade for Howard Lutnicka Calling Trump’s administration for further restriction Export of the AI system. A letter addressed especially to AI H20 NVIDIA systems, which were used during training of the R1 Deepseek “reasoning” model.
January
Deepseek releases its open model “reasoning”
January 27: The Chinese startup Ai Deepseek caused quite mixing in the Silicon Valley when he released the open version of his model “reasoning” R1. Although this just isn’t a special message of semiconductors, the alarm in the AI industry and Deepseek semiconductors meant that it still has an impact on the chip industry.
Order Joe Biden on the export of chip
January 13: Only the incumbent week remained, former President Joe Biden proposed extensive export restrictions on AI systems made by the USA. The order has created a 3 -level structure that determined what number of American systems will be exported to every country. According to this proposal, level 1 countries didn’t face any restrictions; Countries 2 level 2 had a chip purchase limit for the first time; And level 3 countries received additional restrictions.
Dario Amodei from anthropics weighs the limitations of chip exports
January 6: Co -founder of anthropics and general director, Dario Amodei, co -author of opinions The Wall Street Journal Supporting existing control controls of the AI system and indicating them as the reason why the Chinese market of artificial intelligence was in the US. “He also called on the incoming President Donald Trump to impose further restrictions and shutting the gaps that allowed AI to get these tokens in China.
(Tagstranslate) Intel
Josh Raffaella, who has deep roots as an investor of the Silicon Valley and was supported by many firms Elon Musk, suits his former employer, massive trillion dollars Aum Brookfield Asset Management, reports the New York Times.
A major part of Raffaella’s criticism concerns how Brookfield covered losses related to the pandemic of real estate and claims that the company released him after submitting the criticism of informants at SEC. His lawsuit gives allegations akin to fraud and bribe, while Brookfield deny all offenses rapidly, said The Times.
In February, Brookfield quietly closed the Venture Capital unit run by Raffaella and threw some assets on one other unit, Bloomberg reported at the moment. One of Raffaella’s complaints in the lawsuit is that Brookfield didn’t buy so many shares in firms belonging to musk because he provided the possibility of purchase.
Raffaella had shopping transactions in Musk, akin to SpaceX, XAI and a boring company, claims the claim. Bloomberg announced that his Brookfield fund was an awesome supporter of Twitter’s takeover by Musk.
The lawsuit is a really public battle of Raffaella, who previously worked as a partner at VC, known at the time as a drapeer Fisher Jurvetson. (Today it’s a set of funds.) In DFJ Brookfield, it has helped this company spend money on Musk, akin to Solarcity (acquired by Tesla), Spacex and Tesla.
(Tagstranslate) Brookfield
