marketingtech

More broadly, but not unconditionally. They can apply reasonable (definition of that can be another point of contention) restrictions via their app review process as long as the restrictions are applied consistently to all applicants.

There are several reasons for a platform to not want to offer 3p interop, from security to privacy to competition, but the DMA is targeted EU regulation to mandate interop specifically for the big tech cos’ platforms and this is one of the first major tests of the law.

If AI can help an advertiser get the outcome they want in 1000 ad impressions instead of 5000 ad impressions (with more precise targeting or more appealing creative), Meta can 5x the price of those 1000 ad impressions, keep the advertiser happy with the same ROI they had before, and sell 4000 additional impressions to someone else as incremental profit.

Or they could 4.9x the price to show the current advertiser a better ROI and encourage higher spend from them, while still having the 4000 extra impressions to sell.

The financial companies got higher performing ads delivered to the right people, as well as the ability to measure the actions taken from the ads. In exchange, they gave away your data for free.

Every company running ads on the internet is making this value exchange, but these financial companies screwed up by pouring protected data into Google's and Meta's dumb pipes.

They don't. There is no semantic value to this data for them. To Google and Meta, it's an arbitrary data point. To tax companies, it is data that can utilized to either target the delivery or measure the performance of their own ads.

That said, there doesn't need to be semantic value for this to feed into an ML model that ends up associating tax data attributes with other attributes.

The EU issued fines to Google and Meta for billions of dollars a few weeks before they decided this data transfer would be allowed. Wonder if they'll actually be required to pay the full fines now.

EU customer data must be stored and served within the EU, and that guarantee can't be made with a federated service.

Businesses choose to send this data to the ad platforms for their own benefits - better targeting, measurement, and ML optimization of their ad campaigns.

The businesses are legally accountable for the data they're sending and complying with privacy laws, but to most platforms it's a dumb pipe for whatever data the business chooses to send.

"Decimated" is a bit of an overstatement for a business on track for over $!00b in revenue and $40b of profit this year. The growth rate took a huge hit, but it's not like they're on the verge of collapse.

The antitrust probe is not strictly regarding the privacy changes themselves, but that Apple did not subject themselves to the same new policy and opt-in UI. They've preferenced their own services and built a multi-billion dollar ad network using data that's dark pattern opted-in for themselves and dark pattern opted-out for third-parties.

In isolation, this may seem like a standard competitive advantage for a platform, but Apple has drawn attention to their own power by wiping out nearly a trillion dollars of public market cap from other tech and ecommerce companies with the change.

Not coincidentally, Apple quietly announced that they are relaxing some of their privacy restrictions during WWDC last week.

The ruling is focused on Meta, but the order establishes a precedent that applies to ALL American companies. I'm sure Facebook, Google, and Twitter can eventually re-architect their systems and data centers in some way to comply with this, but this is going to be an expensive and technically complex piece of regulation for your standard American company to comply with if they want to operate in the EU.