Who is that new face in the big tech C-Suite? Oh, don’t worry, just some regulator from Europe.
It’s high time big tech resigned itself to the new reality. When it’s making decisions about its own operations and strategy, European regulators have a seat at the table — and a very loud voice.
No, that’s not something entirely new; but interventions in the tech space (impacting martech and adtech) are becoming increasingly frequent.
We have some questions about CrowdTangle
The latest intervention followed Meta’s announcement that it was withdrawing CrowdTangle. CrowdTangle, to put it simply, was a resource that could be used by researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens to analyze content on Facebook and Instagram. It was an especially useful tool for evaluating the presence and volume of disinformation and other toxic content.
The timing of the announcement alone, about three months out from the U.S. presidential election, is enough to make one wince. Don’t worry, said Meta, we still have Meta Content Library, you can use that instead. Spend a few minutes perusing the application form to use Content Library, though, and it becomes clear that it’s really available only to academic researchers that can identify the academic institution with which they’re affiliated. Advocacy groups, journalists and other interested parties would have to turn somersaults to get access.
The European Commission, however, did more than just wince. After the news became public it issued a Request for Information to clarify whether Meta was continuing to fulfill its obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA sets out requirements for platforms like Meta to allow certain access to data.
You may have missed it at the time, but the Commission already opened an inquiry, back in April, into Meta’s “lack [of] an effective third-party real-time election-monitoring tool…”
What if Meta can’t satisfy the latest request? Does that mean the Commission can instruct it to reinstall CrowdTangle, or an adequate substitute, for European users at least? Time will tell. The point I am making here is that Meta should have anticipated that Europe would take a view.
Put the cookies back in the jar
Notice I started by referring to European regulators rather than EU regulators. That’s because I also had in mind the way in which the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decisively put its finger on the scale when it came to Google’s attempt to deprecate third-party cookies from Chrome. ICO raised a litany of concerns about adequate privacy protections in the alternative solutions under development at Google and instructed the company that it could not deprecate cookies until the concerns were met.
Google might have thought that, like Mozilla Firefox for example, it could deprecate cookies on its browser whenever it chose. It had overlooked the threat of regulatory intervention.
In my view, Google has now taken the rather nimble step of allowing users to deprecate cookies all by themselves — at least, that’s what will happen when we see the opt-in (or opt-out) prompt appear on Chrome. Again, my point is that regulators likely had a decisive influence on Google changing course.
DSA here, DSA there, DSA everywhere
It’s the Digital Services Act that has really been stirring the pot recently. The DSA mainly addresses safety and competition concerns relating to very large platforms — internet portals, if you like, obviously including Google and Meta. But it also has rules for smaller digital services like marketplaces, app stores and travel and accommodation offerings.
The last few months have seen the DSA repeatedly used to bludgeon big tech. For example:
- Amazon lost its appeal challenging a DSA requirement to make publicly available a repository containing detailed information on its online advertising.
- X’s blue check system was found, in practice, to be deceptive (there was also the same advertising data repository complaint that Amazon faced).
But wait, there’s the Digital Markets Act (DMA) too. Not to be confused with the DSA. Under the DMA, regulators are investigating Meta’s “pay or consent” scheme whereby users paying a subscription get to give up less of their personal data.
Impact on marketers?
For most marketers, this might seem to be an amusing sideshow. But there are two takeaways.
First, be aware that platforms you might rely on heavily are being, I’d say, semi-hog-tied. In Europe, at least.
Second, for marketers at brands with a significant online presence, pay attention to the DSA and DMA just as you were forced to pay attention to GDPR. Is your organization subject to those laws, and if so, what should you be concerned about?
But yes, it’s mainly a problem for the big tech companies, who have almost unwittingly given up a seat in the C-Suite to someone from Europe.
The post European regulators have a seat at the table appeared first on MarTech.
About the author
Kim Davis is currently editor at large at MarTech. Born in London, but a New Yorker for almost three decades, Kim started covering enterprise software ten years ago. His experience encompasses SaaS for the enterprise, digital- ad data-driven urban planning, and applications of SaaS, digital technology, and data in the marketing space. He first wrote about marketing technology as editor of Haymarket’s The Hub, a dedicated marketing tech website, which subsequently became a channel on the established direct marketing brand DMN. Kim joined DMN proper in 2016, as a senior editor, becoming Executive Editor, then Editor-in-Chief a position he held until January 2020. Shortly thereafter he joined Third Door Media as Editorial Director at MarTech.
Kim was Associate Editor at a New York Times hyper-local news site, The Local: East Village, and has previously worked as an editor of an academic publication, and as a music journalist. He has written hundreds of New York restaurant reviews for a personal blog, and has been an occasional guest contributor to Eater.
(1)
