WEBVTT - Google Backs Industry Bid To Protect Targeted Ads

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.320
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcasts. Google and its

0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 1>industry allies and making a late bid to water down

0:00:25.400 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 1>the first major data privacy law in the US, according

0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg sources. Joining me is Cardoke Marota, Bloomberg News

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:38.080
<v Speaker 1>cybersecurity reporter who reported on this story first. So Cardoke,

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>many people may not be familiar with the California Consumer

0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:46.479
<v Speaker 1>Privacy Act tell us what it aims to do. The

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:50.000
<v Speaker 1>c c p A is UH, California's response to GDPR

0:00:50.040 --> 0:00:53.519
<v Speaker 1>in Europe, and what it would allow UH users in

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:58.480
<v Speaker 1>California to do is opt out of UH data aggregation

0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:03.240
<v Speaker 1>related to their idea entity. So, if you're browsing on

0:01:03.280 --> 0:01:06.839
<v Speaker 1>the Internet and like a pair of boots on Amazon

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:09.440
<v Speaker 1>put them in your car, but don't buy them and

0:01:09.480 --> 0:01:12.960
<v Speaker 1>go to another website and add follows you, this law

0:01:12.959 --> 0:01:16.640
<v Speaker 1>would UH, as it currently stands, allow you to opt

0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:21.240
<v Speaker 1>out of Google or other entities from following you around

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:24.160
<v Speaker 1>the Internet to advertise at you, and that applies to

0:01:24.480 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 1>multiple industries. And so what changes is Google looking for? Well,

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.440
<v Speaker 1>they're looking for an exemption to allow for continued targeted

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>advertising and analysis of the data they collect while following

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:41.360
<v Speaker 1>you around the internet. Uh. They generate over of their

0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 1>revenue from uh AD sales and and so if they're

0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>no longer allowed to follow you and then also take

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:52.240
<v Speaker 1>that information, analyze it and sell it to a third

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:56.720
<v Speaker 1>party that could potentially impact their bottom one. Does that

0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:00.680
<v Speaker 1>defeat the whole purpose of the law? Consumer privacy folks

0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:07.240
<v Speaker 1>certainly seem to think so. Uh. The lawmaker in Sacramento,

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 1>her name is Hannaboth Jackson, who has been the face

0:02:09.280 --> 0:02:11.800
<v Speaker 1>of the Consumer Privacy group, says that this exemption would

0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 1>drive a truck through the c c p A. There

0:02:13.760 --> 0:02:16.520
<v Speaker 1>will be no point to it. So there were two

0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:19.799
<v Speaker 1>years of debate over the c c p A from

0:02:19.840 --> 0:02:23.040
<v Speaker 1>what I understand from your article. So what would the

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:26.840
<v Speaker 1>procedure be to make changes at this late date? Yeah,

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:30.960
<v Speaker 1>So c c p A sort of came into clarity

0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:33.920
<v Speaker 1>in the last three days of the two thousand eighteen

0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:39.320
<v Speaker 1>legislative session. We're in that same period now in uh

0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>and there are a number of amendments on the table

0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 1>to tinker with the c c p A. That's what

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.239
<v Speaker 1>two thousand nineteen was all about. And so there are

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 1>proposals from lawmakers on the table to make these tweaks

0:02:50.840 --> 0:02:53.800
<v Speaker 1>before it kicks in, and we'll get clarity in the

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:57.640
<v Speaker 1>next or thirty six hours. So then lawmakers would have

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:00.720
<v Speaker 1>to approve a new ccp A. No, they would have

0:03:00.800 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>to approve a bill to amend the c c p A.

0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 1>They would have to prove approve new legislation to tweak

0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:12.079
<v Speaker 1>the act that currently exists that kicks in on January one.

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:15.920
<v Speaker 1>How likely is that to happen on ad tech and

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:22.160
<v Speaker 1>target advertising? Extremely unlikely. Well, California's law, I mean, this

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.640
<v Speaker 1>is the first privacy law in the US that you know,

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:32.000
<v Speaker 1>comprehensive sort of Will that be an example for other states? Absolutely? Absolutely.

0:03:32.000 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>We know that Washington tried and failed to pass its

0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 1>own this year. Some of that was related to they

0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:40.040
<v Speaker 1>don't know what what California is up to just yet.

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Um Nevada has explicitly stated that they want to know

0:03:43.120 --> 0:03:46.400
<v Speaker 1>what happens in California before they push forward with their own.

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>We know Illinois has been a leader in privacy law. UM,

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:53.560
<v Speaker 1>and not just states, but Congress is having the same

0:03:53.600 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>conversation in d C. And they're waiting to see what

0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>the benchmark set by California is before they push forward

0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:04.880
<v Speaker 1>with any sort of legislation in one So certainly whatever

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>California does will set the baseline for data privacy laws

0:04:09.960 --> 0:04:13.800
<v Speaker 1>around the country. You spoke of California State Senator Jackson,

0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>she said that this could shift the c c p A,

0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:21.800
<v Speaker 1>could shift the balance of power in Sacramento. How so well,

0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:25.479
<v Speaker 1>she says that over the last decade two decades, that

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 1>the tech industry has been able to ensure that this

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:35.359
<v Speaker 1>wild West of deregulation remains the culture in Silicon Valley.

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:40.480
<v Speaker 1>And she argues that with this stepping stone of data privacy,

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.240
<v Speaker 1>you're creating an environment where where regulation can't be avoided

0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:47.039
<v Speaker 1>any longer, and and Silicon Valley has to come to

0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>the table to discuss the rules of the game, which

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.760
<v Speaker 1>she says haven't existed. And so that is the fundamental

0:04:53.839 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>change that there will actually be conversations about regulation going

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:02.040
<v Speaker 1>forward instead of uh, no debate at all. UM. On

0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.559
<v Speaker 1>the surface, you hear a lot from Google and other

0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:11.840
<v Speaker 1>Internet companies about it's a good idea to respect privacy

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:14.720
<v Speaker 1>and to have this kind of legislation, but does it

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 1>play out in reality? I mean that that is an

0:05:18.640 --> 0:05:21.599
<v Speaker 1>observation that we made in the story as well. Uh,

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:25.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, the talking points are are are fantastic, and

0:05:26.240 --> 0:05:30.000
<v Speaker 1>h G DPRS is encouraged and welcomed and and other

0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:33.920
<v Speaker 1>legislations are are a good idea. But you know, we

0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:37.440
<v Speaker 1>see that Google has lobbied against this law in California.

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:40.159
<v Speaker 1>We see they've lobbied against a similar law in Washington,

0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:44.240
<v Speaker 1>and they've tried to narrow a biometric law in Illinois

0:05:44.279 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 1>not once but twice. And so the question remains whether

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 1>the talking points are going to materialize in something, uh

0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 1>in Congress or at these states beyond the lip service.

0:05:55.920 --> 0:05:58.680
<v Speaker 1>And I think right now what you're seeing is uh

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 1>that lobbyists are still being paid to protect the business

0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:04.720
<v Speaker 1>model instead of data privacy. Does it seem though, as

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.880
<v Speaker 1>if there is a trend lately against tech, especially with

0:06:08.960 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>data privacy. And you just had Google paying a hundred

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and seventy million to settle claims that have violated children's

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:19.279
<v Speaker 1>privacy law, So is there is the tide turning against tech,

0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:22.120
<v Speaker 1>at least temporarily. Well, I think you're seeing that in

0:06:22.360 --> 0:06:25.719
<v Speaker 1>the fact that this amendment is unlikely to get anywhere. Uh.

0:06:25.920 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>Nobody seems to want to carry the industry's water right

0:06:29.080 --> 0:06:32.359
<v Speaker 1>now in Sacramento and be the face of the amendment

0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:35.839
<v Speaker 1>that allows big tech to continue to behave like big tech. Uh.

0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:38.720
<v Speaker 1>And so yes, I think there does appear to be,

0:06:38.760 --> 0:06:42.840
<v Speaker 1>at least in this current uh point in time, a

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:46.000
<v Speaker 1>question about whether you want to be the company that

0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>is pushing a loophole for Google to continue target advertising. Um.

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:54.880
<v Speaker 1>We heard a lot before the the g DPR as

0:06:54.920 --> 0:06:58.440
<v Speaker 1>it was enacted in in Europe. Is there has there

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:00.480
<v Speaker 1>been that much of a problem with it, because we

0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:02.200
<v Speaker 1>don't seem to be hearing as much about it, at

0:07:02.279 --> 0:07:04.279
<v Speaker 1>least I don't. Yeah. No, there've been a number of

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:08.360
<v Speaker 1>fines issued uh in Europe over a lack of compliance. Uh,

0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:09.920
<v Speaker 1>It's it's been a year and a half and and

0:07:09.960 --> 0:07:12.560
<v Speaker 1>so companies are pointing to that and saying, look, these

0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>aren't entities that are behaving maliciously. It just takes a

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:19.680
<v Speaker 1>long time to come to grips with what these laws

0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:22.800
<v Speaker 1>are are doing and how they're changing the game. And

0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:24.880
<v Speaker 1>so that same question exists with c c p A

0:07:25.360 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>and and industry lobbyist and attorneys believe that the language

0:07:28.800 --> 0:07:31.160
<v Speaker 1>and c c p A is even more confusing and

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:35.000
<v Speaker 1>bigger than it is in GDPR. And so these same

0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 1>issues of compliance are going to to linger for extended

0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:42.920
<v Speaker 1>periods of time, maybe years, until companies can figure out

0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 1>exactly how to fall into place. And so the Attorney

0:07:45.920 --> 0:07:48.160
<v Speaker 1>General in California is going to be the one in

0:07:48.280 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>charge of enforcement. And it will undoubtedly be a question

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:56.480
<v Speaker 1>of whether or not UH companies that don't comply are

0:07:56.560 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>penalized or if they're given some sort of um leeway

0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:04.520
<v Speaker 1>to figure things out for extended period right, more battles ahead.

0:08:04.560 --> 0:08:08.280
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much, Cardike. That's cardke Mrotrie, the Bloomberg

0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 1>News cyber security reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:16.280
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:21.040
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

0:08:21.400 --> 0:08:24.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg