The Monopoly Report

Alan Chapell
  • 0.0 (0)
  • MARKETING
  • ZWEIWÖCHENTLICH

In-depth coverage of big tech's antitrust woes from Marketecture.tv. We are covering the Google search and ad tech trials and everything else happening. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://monopoly.marketecture.tv

  1. VOR 2 TAGEN

    Episode 65: The Problem with Age Verification

    Alan Chapell is joined by Professor Jess Miers, visiting assistant professor of the University of Akron School of Law. Jess and Alan discuss some of the inherent challenges around protecting kids on the internet, and how those challenges are increasingly leading policymakers to age verification as the solution. While Alan is curious to see how this approach plays out in Australia, both Jess and Alan are skeptical that age verification will be good for kids or privacy in general.  Professor Miers’ Bio: https://www.uakron.edu/law/faculty/directory/profile.dot?u=jmiers  Chapell Regulatory Insider: https://chapellreport.substack.com/  Takeaways Jess Miers’ career transitioned from policy work to academia, finding a place to express her views freely. Parents face significant challenges in monitoring their children's online activities. The impact of social media on youth mental health is complex and multifaceted. More and more places worldwide are turning to age verification.  The U.S. legal landscape regarding age verification is evolving and is currently impeded due to First Amendment concerns. Advertisers must navigate a nebulous landscape regarding content directed at minors. Data privacy and security concerns are heightened with age verification requirements. Education of both parents and children is essential in addressing online safety. While these issues haven’t squarely hit the ad space just yet, Alan thinks that the post-COPPA 1.0 world will hit the ad space hard. Chapters: 00:01 Welcome + where Jess is calling from  00:36 Policy to academia + why it fits  02:07 Viral CA testimony moment  04:52 What problem age verification is trying to solve  07:03 Youth harm evidence and why causality is nuanced  10:27 Australia: under-16 ban and early consequences  13:54 Europe/UK: “age assurance,” feature limits, and gating  16:37 US: First Amendment and shifting legal strategies  22:55 Why age verification is risky: anonymity + data honeypots  44:28 Where to find Jess + wrap; transcript ends Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    48 Min.

  2. 4. FEB.

    Episode 64: Tom Kemp of CalPrivacy discusses the DROP & Public Policy Goals

    Alan Chapell is joined by Tom Kemp, the Executive Director of California's privacy regulator CalPrivacy, to discuss the launch of the DROP data deletion mechanism and California’s rules regarding the Global Privacy Control. While complimentary of California's efforts, Alan attempts to uplevel the discussion to talk more broadly about the larger public policy goals driving California's privacy regime. Tom Kemp's Bio: https://cppa.ca.gov/about_us/ Tom Kemp's Article: https://www.techpolicy.press/lets-make-privacy-easy/ Chapell Regulatory Insider: https://chapellreport.substack.com/ Takeaways CalPrivacy is the first independent agency focused on consumer privacy. The DROP system allows Californians to manage their privacy rights easily. Over 200,000 Californians signed up for the DROP system within a month of launch. Consumers are increasingly interested in privacy protections. The agency is addressing privacy harms, especially for vulnerable communities. Collaboration with other states is on the table a priority for CalPrivacy - particularly re: the DROP. Transparency in data practices is essential for consumer trust. The agency aims to balance innovation with privacy regulations. Authorized agents play a crucial role in helping consumers exercise their rights. Future regulations will focus on reducing friction for consumers.  Alan shares his thoughts on how CalPrivacy can better align its stated policy goals with outcomes Chapters 00:01 Intro and where Tom is calling from 01:04 What CalPrivacy is and Tom’s role 03:33 Why he took the job and his background 06:18 What’s still on the roadmap from “Let’s Make Privacy Easy” 08:18 What DROP is and how it works 11:05 Early adoption: 200,000+ signups 14:26 Privacy paradox and why “making it easy” matters 17:39 Other states showing interest in a DELETE Act model 20:41 Whether DROP could expand beyond California 23:04 Privacy harms and enforcement focus areas 31:14 Opt out preference signals (GPC/OOPS) and how they fit 37:11 Browser conflicts of interest and potential OOPS regs 41:23 Authorized agents and possible additional regulation 45:57 Defining “data broker” and who must register 54:57 Where to find CalPrivacy resources and closing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    1 Std.

  3. 28. JAN.

    Episode 63: Why are publishers and adtechs privately suing Google on antitrust grounds?

    This week, Brendan Benedict joins Alan Chapell to talk about some of the recent civil antitrust complaints filed against Google by publishers including Penske, The Atlantic, McClatchy, Conde Nast, and Vox Media. With Judge Brinkema's remedies decision pending and a slew of other jurisdictions (e.g., EU, Canada) attempting to remedy Google's adtech practices, why are so many publishers and adtech companies jumping into the pool? Brendan Benedict may be found at: https://www.benedictlawgroup.com/brendan-benedict  The Chapell Regulatory Insider is available at: https://chapellreport.substack.com/ Takeaways The DOJ ruling gives private plaintiffs a head start on liability. These cases will mostly come down to damages calculations. Google avoided a jury, but the detailed opinion may make appeals harder. Remedies are likely behavioral, not divestiture. Statute of limitations could decide how far back damages go. Chapters 00:00 Intro & Guest Welcome 02:20 DOJ Remedies Decision Still Pending 06:20 Overview of Private Civil Lawsuits Against Google 07:05 Publisher Allegations 08:30 Damages Scale Discussion 10:05 DOJ Heavy Lifting for Private Plaintiffs 13:00 Case Consolidation & MDL Structure 15:25 Google Appeal Strategy 19:05 Duke Energy & “Monopoly Broth” Issue 21:45 Jury Trial Avoidance and Implications 23:45 Texas AG Case Expansion 26:00 Europe and Divestiture Pressure 29:05 Calculating Lost Revenue Damages 31:10 Statute of Limitations Debate 33:05 Settlement Likelihood & Bellwether Trials 39:20 FTC Meta Appeal Sidebar 48:10 Final Takeaways Summary 52:15 Closing & Upcoming Guest Preview Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    54 Min.

  4. 21. JAN.

    Episode 62: The Future of Self-regulation in Digital Ad Privacy

    David LeDuc from the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) sits down with host Alan Chapell to discuss the NAI's reinvention of its self-regulatory efforts in light of the influx of U.S. state privacy laws. They discuss what a good privacy law looks like, the challenges around finding the right balance, California's new Deletion tool, and the likelihood of a U.S. federal privacy law in the near term. More on David LeDuc and the NAI at https://thenai.org/about-the-nai-2/staff/ More on the Chapell Regulatory Insider at https://chapellreport.substack.com/ Takeaways The NAI has shifted from crafting self-regulatory rules to helping companies comply with complex state and federal privacy laws as enforcement accelerates. The California Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) is likely the most impactful regulatory development for the ad space heading into 2026. Lumping third-party ad tech companies together with traditional data brokers may create regulatory confusion. Kids’ privacy is rapidly expanding beyond COPPA, creating major challenges for ad tech companies aound compliance given that most have no idea how to ascertain the age of a User. Enforcement sophistication and coordination among state attorneys general are increasing, changing the risk profile for companies that try to “keep their heads down” and do the minimum. Attempts to regulate AI indirectly through privacy and consumer protection laws are likely to continue as federal leadership stalls. Chapters 00:00 Welcome and episode overview 02:23 Who is David LeDuc and what is the NAI today 06:00 Are lobbyists really the problem 09:40 Kids’ data, age verification, and policy tensions 13:06 Educating regulators vs legislators 18:04 Ad tech vs data brokers 21:10 What does a “perfect” privacy law look like 30:27 California’s Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform 35:40 Global Privacy Control and browser obligations 39:25 AI regulation through privacy and consumer protection laws 44:20 Predictions for 2026 50:21 Where to find David and the NAI 52:10 – Final wrap-up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    54 Min.

  5. 14. JAN.

    Episode 61: State Privacy Law from the POV of Civil Society w/Travis Hall of the CDT

    Alan Chapell is joined by Dr. Travis Hall - Director for State Engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a nonpartisan organization focused on civil rights and liberties in the digital age. They talk about the ads space through a lens balancing consumer expectations with business interests and debate the merits of the private right of action. Travis Hall’s bio is available at https://cdt.org/staff/travis-hall/  Chapell Regulatory Insider is available at https://chapellreport.substack.com/ Takeaways: CDT focuses on a broad range of digital rights, not just privacy. Data minimization is essential for effective privacy laws. Consumer expectations often differ from actual online behavior. State privacy laws need strong enforcement mechanisms. The private right of action can drive regulatory change. Targeted advertising is an area of continued focus. Understanding technology is crucial for effective policymaking. Advocacy must balance user rights with industry needs. Collaboration between stakeholders is vital for progress. Historical context shapes current privacy advocacy efforts. Chapter: 00:00 Introduction and Personal Insights 01:18 Understanding the Center for Democracy and Technology 04:33 The Role of CDT in State Privacy Legislation 10:20 Consumer Expectations and Privacy Law 16:11 Elements of Effective State Privacy Laws 21:26 Challenges in Data Minimization Enforcement 24:27 The Impact of GDPR on Ad Tech 26:22 Enforcement Challenges in Digital Media 30:22 The Role of Private Right of Action 38:52 Improving Targeted Advertising Practices 46:02 Acknowledging the Tension in Data Practices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    48 Min.

  6. 24.12.2025

    Episode 60: Did the CJEU just break the Internet?

    Professor Daphne Keller joins host Alan Chapell to discuss the implications of the EU Court of Justice decision in Russmedia - demonstrating that "breaking the Internet" is no longer solely the domain of pop stars like Taylor Swift. An expert in platform regulation and intermediary liability, Professor Keller explains how the CJEU's Russmedia decision poses significant challenges for companies operating in the digital media space in Europe. Daphne Keller's bio may be found at https://law.stanford.edu/daphne-keller/.  The Chapell regulatory outlook report may be found at https://chapellreport.substack.com/. Takeaways The Russmedia case shifts the EU rules on intermediary liability significantly. Intermediary liability laws aim to balance online safety, free speech, and innovation. The court's decision highlights a long-standing tension as between GDPR and the e-commerce directive. Platforms may now be considered joint controllers of user data under GDPR. Identifying harmful content at scale is a major challenge for platforms. The Russmedia case Chapters 00:00 Welcome and show premise 02:05 Daphne Keller and why Russmedia matters 04:00 Why intermediary liability shields exist 06:20 Distinction between Section 230 in the U.S. (absolute liability shield) and the EU notice and takedown regime under the e-commerce directive. 08:45 GDPRand right to be forgotten as background context. 11:00 Russmedia facts and Romanian state court path 13:45 Advocate General view processor vs controller 16:00 CJEU view as joint controllership is the lynchpin of the case. 23:30 Proactive checks and the general monitoring contradiction 34:40 What platforms can do now and the practical tradeoffs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    39 Min.

  7. 17.12.2025

    Episode 59: FTC Commissioner Mark Meador on Digital Media Regulatory

    Host Alan Chapell welcomes Commissioner Mark Meador of the Federal Trade Commission to talk about the future of conservative antitrust, the importance of protecting kids and the impact of the regulatory environment on the digital media marketplace. Commissioner Meador's bio can be found at https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/commissioners-staff/mark-r-meador. The Chapell Report can be found at https://chapellreport.substack.com/ Takeaways Privacy and online safety for children are top priorities for the FTC. The FTC is focused on tangible harms rather than ethereal issues. Antitrust enforcement has seen a bipartisan consensus on the need for more action. The FTC uses 6B studies to understand new markets and inform future regulations. Learning from past FTC experiences is crucial for effective enforcement. AI and deceptive claims are monitored under existing laws. Consumer choice is essential in a competitive marketplace. The FTC is committed to enforcing laws that protect children online. Regulatory actions should avoid creating unintended consequences. Chapters 00:00 FTC Priorities for 2026 03:53 Antitrust Focus and Challenges 07:50 Protecting Children Online 12:08 The Role of 6B Studies 15:54 Learning from Past FTC Experiences 19:41 Addressing AI and Deceptive Claims 23:43 Consumer Choice and Market Dynamics 27:43 Key Takeaways for Digital Media Stakeholders Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    38 Min.

  8. 10.12.2025

    Episode 58: The EU Digital Omnibus, Part 2: With Peter Craddock

    Peter Craddock joins Alan Chapell to discuss the EU Digital Omnibus proposal - and debate the value of simplification of the digital privacy rules in Europe. Peter views these changes as pragmatic, while Alan is concerned that we’re trading in one set of ambiguities to another. More on Peter Craddock https://www.khlaw.com/people/peter-craddock. More on Alan's Regulatory Outlook Substack https://chapellreport.substack.com/welcome Takeaways Peter believes the Digital Omnibus changes are intended to add a layer of pragmatism to EU data protection law. The GDPR was designed to enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, but that doesn’t mean privacy should prevail over everything else. You also take into account other fundamental rights: fundamental right of information and freedom of expression. Chapters 00:00 Peter returns and sets the stage for what the EU Digital Omnibus is and why it exists. 04:20 How the proposal and Court of Justice rulings reshape the meaning of personal data for ad tech. 10:00 What pseudonymous companies can argue today under SRB and related cases. 15:40 Why ePrivacy consent rules still bite even if GDPR does not apply. 20:40 Browser-based consent controls and why industry expects pushback. 26:10 How regulators may respond, and why pragmatism is becoming more visible. 35:40 Legitimate interest for AI training versus consent for monetization. 41:00 Whether the changes help smaller players and what uncertainty remains. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    51 Min.
Alle anzeigen (65)

Info

In-depth coverage of big tech's antitrust woes from Marketecture.tv. We are covering the Google search and ad tech trials and everything else happening. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://monopoly.marketecture.tv

Informationen

  • Erstellt von
    Alan Chapell
  • Jahre aktiv
    2024 - 2026
  • Folgen
    65
  • Bewertung
    Unbedenklich
  • Copyright
    © Copyright (c) 2025 Marketecture Media, Inc.
  • Sendungswebsite
    The Monopoly Report

Das gefällt dir vielleicht auch