Basically, such voices are asking the question, “Does Google Chrome’s latest cookie u-turn represent a peace offering to regulators now that it faces multiple breakup scenarios?”

Despite this, Google stands by its publicly stated aim of a utilitarian approach to supporting the ad-supported media ecosystem, noting it will continue to explore the use of Privacy Sandbox APIs in the coming months.

To quote Chavez’s blog post yesterday: “We’ve made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies. Users can continue to choose the best option for themselves in Chrome’s Privacy and Security Settings.”

Meanwhile, the plethora of companies (including ad tech, agencies and publishing outfits) that spent that last six years investing time, money and effort investing in cookie alternatives are left asking themselves, ‘Was it all just a waste of time?’

Moved before they were pushed?

According to Movement for an Open Web’s James Rosewell, a vocal critic of Privacy Sandbox, Google’s apparent retreat from the Privacy Sandbox marks a significant shift from earlier efforts to centralize digital ad control and eliminate interoperability.

“Regulators are moving to guarantee interoperability just like they do in other sectors such as telecoms and utilities,” he told Digiday in a written statement, adding that, “Google moved before they were pushed.”

For Mathieu Roche, CEO of ID5, the timing of Chavez’s announcement could represent the online giant offering an olive branch to government authorities such as the U.S. Justice Department, which is pushing for the sale of both Google Chrome and its sell-side ad tech in separate legal cases.

“I don’t believe in coincidences when it comes to Google … it feels like it’s some sort of negotiation tactic with the DOJ to prevent Chrome from being spun out,” Roche said, noting that Google is likely to highlight how it is best-placed to preserve web users’ privacy.

Meanwhile, multiple sources consulted by Digiday pointed to the timing of Chavez’s latest announcement, and its proximity to the recent $162 million ruling against Apple’s App Tracking Transparency solution in France as a more likely motivation for Google’s latest u-turn.

Balancing act

However, in the experience of Andrew Casale, CEO of Index Exchange — a company that participated in some Privacy Sandbox experimentation — Google is a much more intentional player, even if it does face multiple regulatory challenges at this time.

“I think it’s very reasonable speculation on the back of the guilty verdict last week and search remedy trial this week, but I would look at it a little bit differently,” he told Digiday, citing the multiple timeline pushbacks over the past six years.

Instead, Casale claimed Google’s delayed timelines have pointed to Google’s efforts to both continue business as usual, for both itself and third parties, while also attempting to satisfy the growing voices of the online privacy lobby.

He added, “And I think in some instances, these two regulatory issues can be at odds with one another, and I think as it pertains to the cookie, they were trying to strike a very delicate balance between both issues, which was becoming more and more problematic.”

Jay Pattisall, vp and senior agency analyst at Forrester, echoed this assessment, adding how the years-long timeline gave both advertisers and service providers ample time to explore different options and experiment.

“The kind of slow but steady, methodical approach was at least an attempt to give not only Google as a publisher, but all of its clients and partners the opportunity to kind of very slowly approach this and when and, and, you know, now slowly back away from it, right?” Pattisall said.

The fallout of Google Chrome’s cookie u-turn?

While expected by many, years of strategic planning now need recalibration, with dozens, if not hundreds, of companies in the online media sector spending much of the 2020s shaping their strategic direction around the privacy policies of online gatekeepers, such as mobile OS and web browser providers like Google and Apple.

Separate Digiday sources that have experimented extensively with the Privacy Sandbox APIs noted how (while expected) confirmation of the latest moves was a closely guarded secret among Google executives. Such sources also indicated how Privacy Sandbox development is likely to occupy much of the meetings involving Google’s executive team at next week’s industry tentpole conference Possible.

One such source, who requested anonymity in order to maintain industry relations, made note of widespread frustration. “The fact that this company has so much market power that they have us all running around for five years just to not move forward … f*ck Google.”

MOW’s Rosewell echoed such sentiments, noting the scale of the collective effort invested in exploring Google’s Privacy Sandbox proposals in recent years, adding that “endless millions of hours and dollars have been wasted by companies in preparation for this.”

He added, “That is unforgivable and should add further urgency to the moves by the DOJ, EU and U.K. to clip Google and Apple’s wings permanently with antitrust actions.”

Meanwhile, ID5’s Roche – who founded said company to offer the industry an alternative ad targeting solution to third-party identifiers in 2017 prior to Privacy Sandbox — advised advertisers to continue efforts to explore alternatives to third-party cookies.

“Is it going to take some wind of our sail, probably,” he said, claiming that Google’s policy decision will only further the challenges caused by fragmentation. “We’ve been existing in this context, right with cookies in Chrome for the past seven years, and we’ve grown. We’ve doubled in size last year, because we create value, even in a world where cookies exist.”

https://digiday.com/?p=576297