[fraserharris]

The stronger GDPR is interpreted by the courts, the stronger Google & Facebook's oligopoly is. To compete as an ad network you will first need to have consented first-party data at scale - in other words, a (or network of) website/application that a majority of European's visit daily.

[shakna]

That doesn't seem to be the case here. In fact, Google asking other's to collect consent, and then performing auditing, may well not be considered compliant after this ruling.'

> The requirement based on the article 7 above-mentioned isn’t fulfilled with a contractual clause that guarantees validly collected initial consent. The company VECTAURY should be able to show, for all data that it is processing, the validity of the expressed consent.

Google hasn't first-party consented through each of the publishing contracts. They may be able to turn it around.

However, the industry would now favour someone who had no need to collect consent, if we're just talking about the base ability. The ad-world's dependency on personalised data is a problem, and may continue having issues with the GDPR.

[candybar]

I think you're confusing Google's ad-tech platform (DFP and such) with Google's actual primary business as a publisher. Google's ad-tech business competes with other ad-tech platforms and provides services for other publishers to monetize their inventory. This is a relatively small part of their overall business that they could live without and Google the publisher doesn't need any of that to stay massively profitable. Google's own inventory would certainly be more valuable in a world where Google's ad-tech platform could not effectively help monetize other publishers' inventory.

[simias]

That's the drawback indeed. That being said overall I'm not sure I'm willing to lament the loss of potential innovation in the profiling industry. Have people compete by offering different monetization schemes.

Furthermore I personally don't use Facebook and only rarely Google so I don't really care about that, everybody is free to decide the first parties they use or don't use. If people find value in these services and use them over the competition is it really unfair that they benefit from it?

Meanwhile third party trackers are on most websites these days so I actually benefit from regulation in that sector because otherwise I simply cannot opt-out of that tracking (unless I manage to block them all with extensions but it's virtually impossible to catch them all).

So IMO this regulation puts the power back into the hands of the users, they decide who gets access to their personal data. That's valuable.

[dspillett]

> the stronger Google & Facebook's oligopoly is

Blocking a few big players is easier than blocking many small ones, so from the point of view of blocking ads until the advertisers stop being shady this might no tbe a bad thing.

If the ad/tracking industry wants me to play the game their way instead of not at all, they need to start playing by decent rules which includes following GDPR's various stipulations.

[kryptiskt]

Google and Facebook relies on other collecting consent on their behalf, lots of Google business takes place on other sites than their own, this is trouble for them too.

[aaaaaaaaaab]

Then maybe stop using our personal data for advertising? DuckDuckGo can do it, so why can’t you?