Movement for an Open Web

When the Movement for an Open Web launched in 2020 many people thought we didn't stand a chance. The scale and power of the platforms made them look like immovable objects, and the idea of changing that through advocacy seemed to many to be impossible. But as 2024 draws to a close we can see that it is not. The tectonic plates of technology antitrust are shifting and the idea of a post-platform world seems closer than many could have imagined. MOW has been a key player in many of these developments and we’re looking forward to maintaining this momentum in 2025 and making a more competitive and open web a reality. In the last few weeks alone, the DoJ’s earth-shattering announcement that they intend to break up Google has shifted the conversation around the future of tech – rather than talking about whether we should do something about Google, the world is now discussing exactly what we should do about Google. Meanwhile, the CMA announced their latest report into the process of Privacy Sandbox following Google’s stunning backtrack of Cookie deprecation. Whilst the project is still notionally progressing, it seems to be on ice as wider regulatory issues are debated. There’s a lot to do in 2025 as the US AdTech case develops, the EC’s Statement of Objections moves forwards and the UK CMA’s Sandbox case continues. MOW will be engaging with all of this and more over the coming months so keep an eye out for our newsletters to keep up to date. Click here to read more.. 👉mailchi.mp/98a1c020c351/m…

📪 MOW's latest newsletter is now out! This month has been a pivotal one for the Open Web, with the US Department of Justice beginning the process that will lead to competition remedies against Google in its Search Trial. In addition, we’ve seen a major intervention in the AI debate from the UK government, the French competition courts have found against Google and our founders have been talking about our cause with some leading media. Read more here! ➡️ mailchi.mp/98c075849c79/m…

MOW’s co-founder, Tim Cowen, joined Marketecture’s Ari Paparo on The Monopoly Report podcast (monopoly.marketecture.tv) for an in-depth discussion about the Department of Justice’s Remedy Framework following the Google Search trial. With options from a breakup of the business through to behavioral and access remedies on the table, this is a key moment for the future of the Open Web. 🎧 Listen here: ➡ open.spotify.com/episode/7wRAjU…

⚖️ Following the US vs Google Search trial, the US Department of Justice has announced its proposed Remedy Framework for Google’s monopoly. The document sets out a portfolio of remedy options that could be imposed on Google as a result of the guilty verdict. Whilst some have speculated that this could lead to the breakup of Google, MOW believes that a series of behavioural and access remedies are the more likely outcome. In Google’s response they – predictably – claimed that the proposed remedies were incompatible with privacy but in fact their response seems to highlight potentially toxic data practices with their business. To find out more read our full statement. 👉movementforanopenweb.com/mow-responds-t…

The Department of Justice must insist that Google share use of its search and advertising data, says MOW in its recently submitted recommended remedies. In anticipation of an announcement from the US DOJ regarding the US vs Google Search trial, read on to find out more about how we think the outcomes should look. 👉 movementforanopenweb.com/doj-must-insis…

Our co-founder James Rosewell has been nominated for AdTech Personality of the Year at The Wire Awards 2024.  Please vote for him here forms.zohopublic.com/lindsay11/form… to support his nomination.

📩 Read our latest newsletter to find out more about the CMA strengthening its actions against Google, our positive vision for the future of the internet, MOW's recent efforts on building a global consensus around digital privacy, and keep track of the various legal cases against Google with a handy timeline. ▶️mailchi.mp/9ace09f4e52a/m…

⚖️On September 9th the curtains opened on the second USA vs Google antitrust case against Google, this time for anti-competitive practices in relation to their alleged monopoly over AdTech. The DOJ is seeking to stop the harm, impose damages and potentially break up the business to restore competition. Read our analysis of the first week of the trial here:➡️movementforanopenweb.com/the-google-adt…

On 6th September the CMA announced a Statement of Objections setting out how Google may have broken competition law by using its dominance to self preference its own adtech services in open display advertising. MOW have been working with the CMA since 2020 to help them understand and navigate the issues around Google’s attempts to dominate the open web and this process is, in part, a result of those conversations. Alongside this, MOW is the lead complainant in the EU Ad Tech case - that is nearing completion and we expect a final Decision from the Commission before the end of November. We were also the lead complainant in the CMA’s investigation into Google’s Privacy Sandbox technology, which has resulted in the delays to the roll out of that project and Google’s recent U-turn on cookie deprecation. We are also helping the US authorities in the Ad Tech case that went to trial on 10 September. Google is now facing concurrent competition processes in the UK, US and the EU. Even if it somehow succeeds in defeating the US Department of Justice in its current AdTech trial Google will still face a day of reckoning from these other regulators. That said, this war is not won. We know that Google has used its monopoly power to reshape the web for its own benefit but the only way that this wrong can be righted is through well thought-out remedies. A breakup of Google’s display advertising businesses is necessary but not sufficient. Google’s ability to dominate the web through its control of the Chrome browser must be reined in if we are to prevent them from simply reasserting their monopoly by another channel. Looking more broadly, we must also address the very same behaviour by Apple to ensure that the open web can thrive across devices. Beyond this, we must look at how web standards are developed, agreed and enforced and we need to build a global legislative consensus on digital privacy that works for both businesses and consumers. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to use this moment to create a fair, competitive and privacy-friendly infrastructure for the internet for generations to come. Short term thinking is therefore not enough – we must look at what has gone wrong, fix the structural issues that have arisen and then put in place processes to ensure that they can never happen again.

In today’s digital landscape, privacy is a fundamental human right. Yet consumer expectations vary widely, which require solutions beyond one-size-fits-all concepts. Click to read MOW’s Data Governance and Accountability Principles which aim to help guide policy makers in truly improving privacy online without centralizing greater control over the internet into Big Tech’s hands. movementforanopenweb.com/mow-data-gover…

In this rather successful month for MOW, find out exactly what's been going on by reading this month's newsletter here: mailchi.mp/a48f6d877801/m…

Google has announced that it is pulling back on its plans to remove third party cookies - a key goal for MOW. This is a clear admission by Google that their plan to enclose the Open Web has failed. Their goal was to remove the interoperability that enabled businesses to work together without interference from monopolists but a combination of regulatory and industry pressure has put paid to that. We’ve long called for Privacy Sandbox to be allowed to compete on its merits. If advertisers prefer its approach and consumers value the alleged privacy benefits, then it will be universally adopted. What wasn’t acceptable was for a solution like this to be forced on the market whilst removing any alternative choices. However, the devil is in the detail. Google say that they’re going to be offering consumers an informed choice. What’s important is that this choice is truly informed, unbiased and applies equally to Google’s own properties as it does to other B2B and B2C providers. Movement for an Open Web will be writing to the CMA before 12th August to ensure this is in place before they think of letting Google off the commitments. There’s nothing in the announcement that prevents Google doing this all over again in the future. Regulators will need to ensure there are legally binding commitments on Google to guarantee interoperability in perpetuity. We started this process in September 2020. It’s now clear regulators are having an impact and they’re only just turning their attention to Apple and Google’s wider product range. After all, Google and Apple work as one company where Google pay Apple $20bn per year, and Apple receive 36% of search revenue. That unholy relationship needs to be unwound. privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/new…

Initial comments. 🚨 Whilst Google's announcement concerning their Privacy Sandbox is a welcome development, it is not yet competition on the merits. CMA asking for submissions by 12th August. 🚨 1️⃣ The "new approach" will only work if it's applied equally to @Google's own products and services. That means notices about interoperability, personalization, data use, including advertising or personalization need to be the same for all parties. (Reminder; there is no such thing as first and third, it is a fiction). 2️⃣ Guarantees backed with legally binding commitments to the Competition and Markets Authority @CMAgovUK and other regulators are needed to prevent Google revisiting these decisions at some random point in the future. 3️⃣ Google's Privacy Sandbox is much more than cookies. The commitment needs to be extended to all other forms of interoperability. 4️⃣ DMA and DMU need to apply the same remedies to @Apple. That means restoring interoperability on Safari. See Google's and CMA's updates behind the article: 👇 CMA - lnkd.in/eRXKyKmA Google - lnkd.in/euXJAw_H For those that care about the Open Web we're here. Find out more. 👇 movementforanopenweb.com/mows-mission-o…

Google is reconsidering third-party cookie deprecation in Chrome. Instead, they're proposing a new opt-out tool for these cookies. Read more here: adexchanger.com/online-adverti…

NEW from me for @TheDrum: Google’s Privacy Sandbox terms unfairly burden advertisers with financial risk, and may also violate privacy laws, according to research by Preiskel & Co and the Movement for an Open Web. thedrum.com/news/2024/07/1…

Digiday has published an important piece looking at fundamental issues in Google's Privacy Sandbox Terms of Service. According to analysis by MOW's lawyers, the ToS is 'discriminatory and one sided', with one anonymous source in Digiday's piece saying 'These are just not valid business terms'. digiday.com/marketing/ad-e… For more information read our full press release and report on MOW's blog. movementforanopenweb.com/googles-discri…

The new government want growth.  Here are five ways they can grow digital: End the Gapple tax Break up walled gardens Enable advertising interoperability Clear privacy laws Unbundle AI Read more here. movementforanopenweb.com/driving-digita…

WTF Apple?  The hypocrisy over random identifiers is clear. linkedin.com/feed/update/ur…

Press Gazette have covered the latest Sandbox updates from the IAB Tech Lab and Criteo. pressgazette.co.uk/news/google-sa…

In response to today’s release by the IAB Techlab of its updated Privacy Sandbox assessment (iabtechlab.com/privacysandbox/) MOW's position is as follows: “When the IAB Tech Lab originally came out with its report Google tried to dismiss it, claiming that it contained ‘many misunderstandings and inaccuracies’.  Here we are four months later and – following a thorough reassessment by the Tech Lab in collaboration with Google – we find out that very little has changed.  The original report was right to identify that Sandbox is not fit for purpose and that it doesn’t support a huge range of use cases on which the modern digital marketing industry is based.  Google’s original response was clearly bluster and lies in an attempt to obfuscate this truth. “Google’s response typifies their attitude throughout the Privacy Sandbox process.  They’ve tried to bulldoze their way through, hiding their motivations by spreading uncertainty and doubt.  The obvious solution here is to retain interoperability and so allow Privacy Sandbox to compete on its merits, not to force its adoption by closing down alternative solutions.”

@jwrosewell's @AdMonsters presentation references: GApple “One Company” e-mail - justice.gov/d9/2023-10/417… Mission - movementforanopenweb.com/mows-mission-o… CMA & Google Commitments - assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52… EC & Google Statement of Objection – theverge.com/2023/6/14/2375… EC Core Platform Services - ec.europa.eu/commission/pre… UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 - bills.parliament.uk/bills/3453 CMA & ICO joint statement - gov.uk/government/pub… Apple Privacy Policy - apple.com/uk/privacy/ $20bn revenue - justice.gov/d9/2024-05/421… 36% revenue share - thecapitolforum.com/wp-content/upl… ICO Data Protection Impact Assessment - #dpia5" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">ico.org.uk/for-organisati… ICO Anonymisation Guidance - ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/… CMA 2020 Market Study - gov.uk/cma-cases/onli… James’ 2020 Letter to CMA - assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e8c595c…