“We want to encourage publishers to deploy more privacy-preserving advertising such as contextual models, and we will explore where the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) consent requirements are preventing such a shift”. Thank you, Information Commissioner’s Office, for showing openness to this issue.
Regulators in the EU, the UK and even the USA have been demonising profile-based advertising and promoting alternatives, without pausing to consider (i) whether there is actual unlawfulness to profile-based advertising and (ii) whether the alternatives that they promote can escape the more stringent requirements that those regulators keep on imposing.
This has often led to a “what’s the point?” question from various players in the digital ecosystem.
As I have said repeatedly, strict interpretations of the “service” exemption under Art. 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive / Article 6(4)(b) PECR are not helping anyone. It doesn’t help with profile-based advertising (which many claim is unlawful but no legislator has actually excluded in general), nor does it help with privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) or “less intrusive” ad approaches (“limited data” ads, because contextual always needs some data to work, notably for anti-fraud reasons).
I continue to think that there are things that fall outside of the scope of ePrivacy / PECR, though, and that regulators are either leaving things unclear (like the ICO) or going overbroad in their interpretation (like the EDPB).
In that context, it’s good to see one regulator at least is getting the message. I personally don’t agree with everything they say in this respect, but at least the ICO’s strategy for online tracking shows that there is a readiness to listen.