Technology is evolving faster than we can blink and it’s becoming clear that it’s time creativity and control were reclaimed. As monopolies and walled gardens dominate and limit access, the balance between innovation and content creation is more crucial than ever. In a rapidly changing ecosystem,  publishers are exploring strategies to navigate an open internet increasingly challenged by distribution obstacles and signal loss.

Once a beacon of free and open access, the open web faces an identity crisis. Media companies that once thrived on direct consumer connection are struggling with the rise of walled gardens. Marketers, for their part, acknowledge their role in building these silos as they increasingly funnel media budgets into tech giants. Reclaiming control of data, creative strategies, and audience engagement is critical to preserving the future for both sides.

Publishers should not look at these shifts as threats but as opportunities to develop new strategies that align with consumer behavior and market demands. 

From the rise of social-driven search and FAST channels to Google’s ongoing antitrust trial, ProgIO spoke to many of the challenges facing publishers today. As the industry continues to push for transparency, fairness, and a more open ecosystem, the path forward depends on innovating while maintaining trust with consumers and each other. 

Here are our top takeaways from Day 1.

Breaking Free: How Marketers Can Reclaim Creativity in a Tech-Driven World

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, talking about convergence at programmatic IO. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, walked us through industry shifts driven by audience, inventory, optimality, and privacy. He says, “The technology we have today is not the technology we’ll have tomorrow.”

Let him tell it: marketers need more control to move away from monopolies and hone in on new technologies to transform their roles in the industry. Eoin emphasized that marketers spend too much time on tech rather than creative marketing. We are evolving from scale, automation, and walled gardens to a new phase focused on integration, alignment, and collaboration. 

More highlights from his talk:

• Let AI automate the hard stuff.
• Take advantage of multi-faceted solutions that integrate third-party data and work across walled gardens.
• Adopt new technology and legal frameworks to ensure compliance and consumer trust.

Eoin’s main argument is: “Let marketers be marketers” free them from technological constraints!

The Future of the Open Internet Is?

Allison Schiff, Managing Editor at AdExchanger, Ben Hovaness, CMO at OMD, Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black, and Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor of Marketecture Media discuss the future of the open internet. Photo by Donna Alberico.

What is the open web? The term has gotten lost in the mix, and AdExchanger’s Allison Schiff ensured the panelists revealed the definition from their perspectives early in the session. According to Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor at Marketecture Media, if you can access a website for free and buy ads freely, it is part of the open web. 

Media companies are losing distribution channels and struggle to connect directly with consumers. What are the biggest challenges of the open web? Walled gardens and signal challenges. Can marketers blame consumers for this mess? Not exactly. Marketers helped create the walled gardens by continuing to invest in and work with them.

“The open internet lost the resources to create the content and do a lot of things that it did to keep the communities it had built,” revealed Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black. “That’s why we are all seeing the decline over the last three years. Big publishers are going out of business or restructuring.”

More key points from this session:

• The cloudiness around Chrome’s plan for cookies makes it difficult for publishers to determine the best strategy to combat signal loss. 
• Publishers have great tools like WordPress, Beehiiv, and Ghost, along with podcasting, as new solutions for reaching people and monetizing those connections. 
• When asked what the future of the open internet was, the panelists responded bright, sleek, diverse, and changing. 

TikTok, The Latest to Step In the Search Game

AdExchanger’s Executive Editor Sarah Sluis sits down with Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok, to talk about the platform entering the search business. Photo by Donna Alberico.

TikTok is the app beating Google as the number one search engine. With data showing significant search activity on the app, we’re learning that rich, social media-driven search results are key for connecting with consumers and influencing their discovery and purchase intent. It’s no surprise the company is investing in bringing advertising to search. 

“There are two key data points that triggered this for us. One is that independent research proves that 55% of people get their search results from social media and video,” said Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok. “It was just a very good box of rich examples. An example might be if you’re planning to travel to Singapore when you visit a traditional search engine, you’d find links to guide you through that process. On the other hand, you go on to TikTok or some other platforms where you’ll get really rich videos of people like you going through the same decision-making with their experience. It’s a very different experience in the back end of this.”

Ads have been part of TikTok’s monetization model for a while now, but the TikTok shop shook up the game when it came to fruition last year. Live-streaming allows creators to earn money by getting “tipped” from their audience, while the TikTok shop facilitates seamless transitions within the app. TikTok’s investment in logistics and the closed-loop shopping experience allows it to fully capitalize on the commerce generated by creators.

More interesting insights:

• The social media company’s motto: “Don’t make ads, make TikTok’s” works.
• TikTok caters to its users’ diverse interests, allowing brands to connect with highly engaged audiences.
• Ensuring that ads are native is key; don’t oversaturate because ad fatigue can be real.
• TikTok stands out because it is independent and doesn’t rely on partnerships or external links for e-commerce.

Why The Trade Desk is Winning According to Wall Street

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director of Wolfe Research shared her predictions for the industry from an investor’s perspective. Photo by Donna Alberico.

With the ongoing regulatory scrutiny of Google and the pending cookie deprecation, scale and first-party data are both emerging as leaders in the industry.

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director at Wolfe Research, dove deeply into The Trade Desk’s success. Partnering with agencies leads to higher retention rates. Product innovations like CTV and UID2 have kept The Trade Desk at the top of the industry. Also, their independence and omnichannel approach allow them to maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest. 

“Trade Desk saw the potential of bidded programmatic and connected TV before most others in the industry,” said Shweta. “As a result, with the head start that they saw, they saw a step change in their growth rates and trajectory.”

Shweta also predicts that Google will spin off one of its ad tech businesses, which could level the playing field. 

Shweta’s other predictions:

• The Trade Desk’s Open Path and Magnite’s clear line anticipate the convergence of the demand and supply sides.
• Efficiency gains will be necessary, and pricing pressures might arise as DSPs and SSPs merge.
• Larger publishers may develop their yield management systems, leading to supply-side consolidation.
• The demand side might gain an upper hand due to its proximity to ad budgets.

Google on Trial: The Battle for Fairness, Transparency, and the Future

Allison Schiff talked to Claire Atkin, Co-founder & CEO of Check My Ads and Jason Kint CEO of Digital Content Next about the ongoing DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Google’s monopolistic practices have heavily hindered the publishing industry, and we are all standing on our toes, waiting to see the outcome of this decision. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, explained how Google is extracting value that should go to newsrooms and entertainment companies. 

Jason talked about “dynamic revenue sharing,’ where Google manipulates bid prices to maintain its margins, often behind publishers’ backs. With a press box seat at the trial in Virginia, he says Google’s defense strategy is to confuse the market and redefine it to include more competition, like TikTok or TV. Isn’t this what we’ve all been thinking? Isn’t this a weak defense?

It was great seeing Claire Atkin again doing her best: exposing the real. According to Claire, Google plays a huge role in monetizing misinformation and lacking transparency. Smaller businesses suffer since they don’t receive funds or adequate support from Google when campaign issues arise. Claire argues for log-level data transparency and know-your-customer laws to ensure fair practices. 

Other important highlights:

• Judge Leonie Brinkema is skeptical of Google due to evidence purging, which impacts the credibility of Google’s witnesses. 
• The trial is part of a broader antitrust movement against major tech companies, and breaking them up could lead to more opportunities and fairness in the industry. 
• Both speakers hope to see a future where advertisers can better track and verify their ad placements, leading to more accountability and fewer fraudulent practices.

FAST is Moving Fast

Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions talks the future of FAST at AdExchanger’s Programmatic IO Day 1. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Several factors are contributing to the rise of FAST, such as subscription fatigue and evolving audience behavior. On a daily basis, consumers are shifting their mindset from avoiding ads to accepting them if they come with free content. 

“We see that 53% of our consumers are spending at least 2 hours a day in FAST, and the average time of the session is 73 minutes,” said Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions. “Eighty-seven percent of FAST users have free streaming channels they watch regularly. This shows high levels of habitual viewing. Eighty-one percent believe that FAST streaming channels offer high-quality content. This is important because this perception of fast being low quality is being challenged here.”

Contrary to popular belief that FAST viewers are less engaged or loyal, Katie argues they are developing strong followings due to curated content. The stereotype that FAST viewers are solely budget-conscious is false, as the data shows a diverse and affluent audience.

Other Factors of FAST:

• The median income of FAST users is $85,000, with an average of $110,000, and 43% earning over $100,000 annually. 
• FAST is popular among family units, with a high percentage of users owning homes, being married, and having children, underlining its family-friendly nature.
• FAST is a valuable platform for brands aiming to reach key demographics.

On the Horizon: A New Era for Publishers and Marketers

Publishers and marketers are standing on the brink of significant change. With walled gardens tightening their grip and signal loss challenging traditional methods, publishers are redefining their approach to audience engagement, while marketers are pushing for more autonomy in how they reach and connect with consumers. 

From publishers exploring innovative content distribution methods to marketers reclaiming creative control, the next chapter is about pushing beyond the familiar and embracing new opportunities. 

The journey doesn’t stop here. Day 2 included more revelations and strategies, so stay tuned for our Programmatic IO Day 2 wrap-up on Monday. We’ll dig deeper into the discussions, highlighting key takeaways and what lies ahead for publishers and marketers in this fast-moving space. 

The post PROGIO Day 1: The Next Chapter for the Open Internet, Google vs. DOJ Face-Off, and More appeared first on AdMonsters.

We were all at the edge of our seats last week as the entire industry tuned in each day of the DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. 

The ad tech world is on high alert, gripping the industry with every twist and turn. To help make sense of it all, the AdMonsters editors dive deep into the first week of the trial in our premiere episode of ‘Google on Trial.’ This is more than just a courtroom drama—it’s a potential turning point for publishers, advertisers, and digital media.

In this episode, Lynne, Andrew, and I unpack key moments, testimonies, and implications that could reshape how we think about Google’s role in ad tech. We explore everything from data brokerage and market manipulation to publishers’ challenging negotiations with Google. The discussion even touches on global regulatory impacts, secretive maneuvers by Google, and how small players might be the most affected.

Curious to hear the full breakdown? Watch the video and join us in dissecting this critical moment for the industry.

Lynne’s Takeaways:

Data Brokerage and Market Manipulation – Lynne references an AdMonsters article by Adam Heimlich, arguing that Google’s true power lies in its massive data trove and how it uses it to broker ad placements. Google’s dominance is not just about having better tech but leveraging data to manipulate the ad marketplace in its favor.

Global Regulatory Impact – The trial could have global implications. She mentions fines imposed on Google and Apple in Europe and the UK’s CMA pushing for more transparency in ad tech. This trial could be part of a larger global reckoning against tech giants like Google and Apple, or “GApple.”

Stephanie Layser’s Testimony – Lynne highlights former NewsCorp exec Stephanie Layser’s testimony about publishers feeling held hostage by Google’s dominance. The lack of transparency and the difficulty of finding alternative demand sources means that publishers are stuck with Google, despite the potential for higher costs and complications if they switch away.

Yakira’s Takeaways:

Negotiating with Google Was Never Easy – Yakira emphasizes Goodway Group’s Jay Friedman’s testimony, noting that negotiating with Google is almost impossible due to its dominance. Friedman compared the alternative options to Google’s services as choosing between high-end and budget hotels, underscoring the unrealistic nature of switching away from Google without suffering revenue losses.

Header Bidding Was ‘Not the Answer – Header bidding was supposed to provide an alternative to Google’s dominance, but it actually made things worse for some publishers. Gannett’s attempt to switch to header bidding led to a 15-20% increase in CPMs, illustrating the difficulty of finding viable alternatives to Google’s ad services.

Why Is Google Being So Secretive? – Google’s attempts to exclude certain testimonies and make the switch from a jury to a bench trial by paying the government $2 million. This move highlights Google’s extensive power and raises questions about their transparency and motives in the trial.

Andrew’s Takeaways: 

The Small Player’s Reliance on Google – Small businesses and publishers see Google’s ad tech as a cost-effective and streamlined solution. Breaking up Google’s ad business could complicate ad management and increase costs, negatively impacting their ability to advertise and grow.

Check My Ads’s Two Cents – Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads argues that Google’s monopolistic practices stifle competition and transparency in the ad tech space. The trial could lead to structural changes and more global regulation, and reignite discussions on legislative measures like the America Act for digital media transparency.

What’s Next?

The trial has highlighted the complexity of breaking up major tech monopolies, the potential ripple effects on small businesses and publishers, and the intricate balance between legislative oversight and market self-regulation.

Stay tuned for weekly updates and deep dives as we continue to unpack this monumental trial. We will bring you the latest developments and expert analyses on what it all means for the future of digital media and ad tech.

Bye everyone, and see you next week!

The post Inside the DOJ’s Big Tech Showdown: AdMonsters Breaks Down Week 1 of Google’s High-Stakes Trial appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google is in the global antitrust hot seat right now, with all eyes watching the current DOJ trial accusing the tech conglomerate of running an ad tech monopoly. The DOJ argues that Big G operates three monopolies — ad tech, search, and the Android app.

In her opening statement, DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google’s control over multiple areas of the tech ecosystem is particularly harmful, stating, “One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”

The DOJ alleges that Google manipulates the ad tech market, and gate keeps tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, allowing it to pocket at least 30% of every advertising dollar. This has led to reduced earnings for web publishers and increased costs for advertisers. 

The trial, expected to last 4-6 weeks, may prove more damaging to Google than previous cases, with the DOJ seeking to break up parts of Google’s ad business, specifically its Ad Manager suite. Experts suggest that if Google loses, it could lead to significant restructuring, possibly splitting the company into separate entities for search and advertising. 

Yet, industry opinions differ about how this should play out. 

On one side of the docket, some small publishers and business owners assert that small businesses rely heavily on Google’s display advertising platform as it provides an effective and cost-efficient way to reach customers. 

On the other hand, opposing opinions, like the organization Check My Ads assert that Google’s harmful practices, prioritizing opacity over quality, are finally being challenged in court, paving the way to restore market fairness and a healthier information economy.

The Plight of Small Businesses: Google Ads as a Cost-Effective Solution 

At a Connected Commerce Council Press Conference about the case, small publishers discussed how breaking up Google’s display ad business could lead to higher advertising costs, more complexity in managing multiple ad platforms, and potentially less relevant ads. This would negatively impact small businesses’ ability to market and grow their companies effectively.

Here’s what some small businesses had to say: 

Lakita Anderson, who runs the recipe website Simply Lakita, emphasized how display ads are now her “main revenue source” and that losing this revenue model would “mess up a system that works well” for her business. She explained that without the easy integration and management that Google’s platform provides, she would have to “bring in a person to manage all the different platforms,” which would be challenging for her small team.  

Pavlo Prannyk, co-founder of olpr. Leather Goods Co., voiced concerns about potentially having to pay more for advertising if the ruling breaks up Google’s display business. He noted that Google ads are currently the best money he can make on his digital marketing spend, and he is worried about not having access to this cost-effective solution. Pavlo stated, “I just don’t want it to be as expensive as it is right now.” 

Salil Gandhi, owner of digital marketing firm SBO Buzz, argued that the DOJ lawsuit needs to make more sense from the perspective of his clients. He explained that most of his small business clients have monthly ad budgets under $500, so “saving an extra nickel or two on your display ads isn’t going to impact you that much.” However, the added complexity and time required to manage multiple ad platforms would far outweigh the cost savings that breaking up Google could provide. Salil emphasized that Google’s integrated tools and free services are crucial for enabling small businesses to effectively advertise online.

The evidence shows that some have benefited from Google’s “dominance,” but dissenting opinions have plenty of criticism for Google’s alleged monopolistic practices. 

Challenging Google’s Image as a Small Business Advocate…and Further Regulations

On the other side of the fence, it’s believed that, for publishers and advertisers, the trial will expose how Google’s dominance has led to overcharges and lost revenues, especially for smaller players who lack alternatives. They argue that Google’s portrayal of itself as a small business advocate will likely be challenged, revealing a history of opaque practices and incentives undermining trust in their platforms. The trial could spark global regulatory changes that demand more transparency and fairness to create a healthier environment for competition.

According to Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, the DOJ’s case against Google aims to introduce structural changes to the ad tech industry. The first step in remedying this would be to divest from Google’s sell-side tools. Taking away investment from the tools would curb Google’s alleged ad tech monopoly.

“The DOJ understands that controlling user data is at the core of Google’s power. With the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority now addressing similar issues, pressure on Google is mounting,” says Garcia. “The hope is that any remedies will break up Google’s control and address broader industry challenges by rebalancing the market.”

Garcia adds that the trial will also draw attention to Google’s profound control over digital advertising and, by extension, the information economy. Google’s actions have redefined the market, setting a precedent for opacity and a lack of accountability while favoring their platforms over competition.

She argues that “by manipulating the auction process and profiting from conflicting roles as buyer and seller, Google has damaged publishers and advertisers.”

If the DOJ succeeds, Garcia argues that divestiture alone will not be enough. Broader regulations are needed to ensure transparency and competition in digital advertising, particularly for ad placements and pricing. 

Advertisers and publishers must be empowered to know where their ads appear, what they are paying for, and who they are supporting. The trial could also reignite conversations around legislation like the AMERICA Act, further pushing for reforms that dismantle the opaque and often harmful practices that have allowed disinformation to thrive unchecked.

The post Two Sides of Google’s DOJ Trial: Cost-Effective Solutions or Monopolistic Abuse? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Twenty-five years ago, search transformed the digital world. 

At its inception, Google was a fledgling company that revolutionized the Internet with its search engine. It built and expanded its empire thanks, in part, to the ruling in the antitrust case against Microsoft. The tables have turned today, and Google is on the other side of the bench.  

In early August, Google’s loss in the search antitrust case decision marks a landmark moment for the search industry. As it stands, Google forces user searches to be funneled to its search results page, squashing innovation and extracting tens of billions from search advertisers and publishers in the process. 

The industry now awaits proposed remedies to bring competition to the search market. The door is finally open for browsers and other search properties to innovate and improve the consumer search experience in search advertising by shaping consumer intent.

The Rise of a Tech Giant

In 1998, Larry Page and his Stanford friends invented a brilliant search engine that allowed anyone with a web browser to access relevant results to any query instantly and for free. Google now dominates search and most of Big Tech. 

At the time, the company’s algorithms were so much better than competing search engines that the word “Google” became a verb that was, and still is, synonymous with “search.” 

As Google grew, went public, and eventually added free software like Gmail, Maps, and Chrome, it extended its digital advertising empire. At the time, the only losers seemed to be the news and editorial publications who traded analog ad dollars for digital pennies when they raced to give away content for traffic. 

However, to grow search ad revenue, Google began locking out competitors, raising ad rates, and extracting value from the user experience. As it extended its monopoly into new markets over the last ten years, Google’s search revenue has grown fivefold. 

Unlocking Innovation on the Open Web

Google’s stronghold on the search advertising market is largely due to its exclusive search distribution contracts, which force partnerships like Apple to outsource search experiences to Google, making it the default search engine.

Conversely, “Search on the Open Web” is when a person searches for relevant results outside the search engine, such as on the homepage of a privacy browser like Firefox or through a shopping app like Klarna. In 2023, the size of the Open Web search advertising market was $90-100 billion. Over 90% of that revenue went to Google, according to evidence revealed in the U.S. v. Google antitrust trial.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. determined that Google’s exclusivity prevents the largest Open Web search properties from controlling ad selection or experimenting with their results. The tech conglomerate is also guilty of removing search results and ads provided by Google. 

Now that Google has been found liable, the door to competition, innovation, and experimentation has opened. Most importantly, the consumer will benefit because the industry is entering a new era of curated search results. 

How Can the Consumer Benefit?

Search on the Open Web opens the door to innovative, generative AI solutions. When Open Web search properties compete to experiment with search, consumers benefit from a more modern, personalized, relevant, and dynamic experience. With a curated search experience, users can find the best result or offer from the browser or property they are searching on and skip the SERP altogether.

Google’s exclusivity contracts currently prohibit this innovation. As a result, Open Web search properties generate less than 10% of total Open Web search revenue. Today, few Open Web search properties can refuse to forgo Google ad revenue altogether — but that is poised to change. 

What’s at Stake for Advertisers and Publishers?

The Court is poised to require Google to compete in search to create incentives for open Web search properties to innovate the search experience. Breaking Google’s exclusivity would bring transparency and efficiency to advertisers, as publishers could show their search results or ads or curate those from direct sources.

Whether it’s privacy search or Generative AI, everyone from DuckDuckGo to Apple Safari to your favorite shopping app could show Google and their own search results and make revenue from their search media.

For advertisers, tens of billions of dollars in wasted ad spend is at stake – as well as the return of transparency and control over their budgets. With Google’s exclusivity deals prohibited, these advertisers can “go direct,” reducing costs and gaining transparency.

The Future of Search Will Be Curated and Driven by Consumer Intent

Search on the Open Web will more effectively serve the needs of consumers in today’s increasingly fragmented and modernized search journey.

The Court’s decision suggests that it will fashion the remedy most likely to create competition in the search results and ad markets, similar to the Microsoft remedy in the early 2000s.

A potential structural remedy, such as the divestiture of Chrome and Android, would incentivize Google to participate in search markets where competitors produce innovative user search experiences and deliver transparency and efficiency to advertisers.

However, the remedy phase plays out, and one thing remains certain: the future of search will be built around valuable moments of consumer intent that can open up the market for $500 billion in consumer spending.

The post Back to the Future of Search: Google’s Loss In The Search Antitrust Trial Unlocks Innovation appeared first on AdMonsters.

But alas, we have a projected presidential election winner, so we can all sorta go back to normal and focusing on the latest developments in ad tech… Right after we check if the latest vote totals…

Nope—still stuck in election mode. There’s gotta be a way to tie the election and ad tech together? Well, what does a Joe Biden presidency mean for ad tech and digital media? The speculators are out in force!

Adweek’s comprehensive article sums up most of the predictions out there.  First off, additional antitrust crackdowns against large tech platforms—starting with a major amendment to the apparently hastily constructed and politically motivated antitrust suit against Google. 

Sources also expect a federal online privacy law is on the agenda, though Adweek uses the subhead “One law to rule them all” when legislative options on the table like the one from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) would not supersede state laws like CCPA—that won’t be popular with pubs.

Net neutrality will likely make a welcome comeback before any bad actors took advantage of its cancellation. But many are curious about candidate Biden’s desire to revoke the ever-controversial Section 230 liability protections for digital media. There’s some suggestion of replacement legislation for Section 230 that might encourage more responsible content monitoring by social platforms and shared liability.

But what might that look like? No one has the faintest idea. It’s definitely not going to resemble Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) bizarre anti-behavioral ad bill that used the canceling of Section 230 protections as a punishment.

All right, AdMonsters already joined the speculating! Most definitely the Google antitrust suit is going to be amended because it’s weak and sad. Section 230 is not going anywhere because there’s no good alternative—liability protections make for a better Internet, believe it or not, and the market will have to effect change over social platform monitoring.

Federal privacy legislation is where things get interesting. It’s long been a bipartisan issue—even if we fear Republicans will try to rope section 230 revocation into any online privacy debate and stymie the process. And get this: Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and even the IAB all want a federal privacy law—namely so they don’t have to comply with 50 divergent privacy laws plus whatever territories come up with. 

“Is Florida opt-in or opt-out? Am I getting the ‘selling data’ definition mixed up with the one from Idaho?” They want a superseding federal privacy law—which makes a lot of sense. Look at the difficulties the EU Commission is having with GDPR—the report card issued by the Commission admits the greatest difficulty aligning guidance across countries’ Data Protection Authorities.

But as we mentioned earlier, Sen. Cantwell’s legislation will keep CCPA and the newly passed CPRA intact. The fear behind federal privacy law for a long time has been that lobbyists from the dominating digital data dominions would compose toothless, enforcement-free guidelines similar to ad tech “self-regulation.” The bigger issue might be baseline federal regs that leave publishers and ad tech players lost in a labyrinth of state regs. 

The post High Speculation Time for Biden Tech Policies appeared first on AdMonsters.