- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
UK’s Competition Authority Displays Concerns Over Google's Ad-Privacy Plan
UK’s Competition Authority Displays Concerns Over Google's Ad-Privacy Plan
The tech giant had scrapped its long-standing plan to remove cookies
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has stated that Google's online advertising practices face renewed scrutiny in Britain, as "concerns remain" over the company's plans to retain third-party cookies as part of its Chrome browser.
In July, the tech giant scrapped its long-standing plan to remove cookies (the tiny packets of code that track users across the internet) from Chrome.
However, advertisers, Google's biggest source of revenue, complained that the move would limit their ability to personalize ads, leaving them dependent on the search engine platform’s database.
To appease critics, Alphabet-owned Google said users would have the choice to allow cookies to track them when browsing with Chrome.
Following the reversal of cookies, the CMA invited stakeholders to share their views on the decision.
The CMA’s statement read, "Based on careful consideration of the responses, our view is that competition concerns remain under Google's revised approach. If we are unable to agree on changes to commitments, the CMA will consider what further action may be necessary.”
Google's use of cookies has garnered scrutiny from other regulators, including Britain's privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which previously supported the company's plans to ditch the tracking tools.
A Google spokesperson stated that the company's approach would enable users to make informed choices when browsing the web with Chrome.
He added, "As we finalize this approach, we will consult the CMA, ICO and other regulators globally, and look forward to the ongoing collaboration with the ecosystem to build a private, ad-supported internet."