California, FTC, TIM discussed on Digiday Podcast
For the U.S.. There have been plenty of such bills proposed over the past decade and none have passed into the law. Is there anything that stands out to you about this latest Bill? Well, I think there's momentum Tim and whether it happened this time or it happens a year from now. What we're seeing is serious bipartisan effort with this bill to try to put something forward to create what Europe has been clamoring for us to have what a business in the U.S. has been increasingly calling for is uniform standards around privacy so that we can start building into the future. One thing that stands out to me with this bill is that a lot of the privacy laws California the CCPA, for example, has been primarily opt out. This seems to be more opt in where there is a kind of provision in there talking about the right to consent. And that, for example, people would need to give consent before their data could be used for targeted advertising. Does that? Is that a shift to you? Yes. And we've been looking at this for a long time, you and I, Tim had been talking about the increasing trends around privacy and ad tech and targeting. And I would venture, haven't actually said this except on this podcast that a big part of the fuel surrounding this movement around data privacy and this heightened awareness around data privacy from where I am sitting looking at this over decades, it just appears to be focused on ad tech and profiling and targeting. That's what is actually the trigger for a whole host of other related proposals, legislation, regulation, enforcement. But sort of the canary in the coal mine or what is triggering all of this attention is the digital advertising ecosystem, which is in shifted as you know. Right. And with that, so that's the trigger for this regulation and increasing legislation. What's the trigger for advertising to then become that catalyst be that trigger in and of itself? Was it the Cambridge Analytica scandal for Facebook? I think it even it started even before then. So I'm looking at this from back in 1998 when I was working for a small law firm that did a lot of work for one of the major tech companies. It still exists. And it was one of the first privacy spade of privacy class actions. And FTC investigations and that's where I kind of kept my teeth and that was based on sort of the privacy advertising anonymity issues. We're still seeing that today. That was back in 1998. Some of the first FTC actions. And then if you look at the arc when the FTC started doing guidance on behavioral targeting. In 2007, in 2009, you can almost start seeing this drum beat or heightened angst around the digital advertising ecosystem and how or whether it was transparent enough to users about what data is being collected. And so I represent companies that are in the business of digital advertising. And I think every company right now has to have a digital advertising strategy, but relaying the value proposition from a consumer centric point of view is the trend. And there's really been, you know, yes, we can look at Cambridge Analytica and other things as well. But it's really been a tsunami effect starting I see from 1998 and then really accelerated frankly to this moment where we are now where we are still winding our way through or towards the end of a pandemic. Hopefully, although I just read about a surge of, but. There is heightened dependence on data and everybody knows it. And so there is a concern about, hey, are these advertising profiles that are being created? Could they be sold for credit purposes, insurance purposes, employment purposes? And now, with what we've got going on in our country with row, is this location data, personal information, health data prescription data, et cetera, is that information that can be in all good intention, subpoenaed in a grand jury in criminal proceedings. If I entrust this with the company I know, and the back end, companies, I don't know. And those are the things going through, consumers minds, and they are increasingly going through legislator and regulator minds because consumers, I think this is a ground up, not a top down movement. From what I've seen. Right, and it does seem like because the advertising industry often will make the case of, well, we're using the data for targeted advertising and their implication being. This is a pretty benign use case. And then there's always the argument that industry people make of people like targeted ads. We don't have to get into that discussion because that's a whole ball of wax of its own. But it seems like what has kind of shifted and in my mind, I think I kind of tie it back to Cambridge Analytica because I think that was the first big example of, well, this data may be collected and used for advertising purposes, but what happens to it from there, who can get access to it from there, and then what can they do with that in that seems like it's been more and more on the minds of certainly regulators, but even just, I think, in some respects, the general public of, okay, well, if I'm providing this data, how do I know who actually will have access to this data ultimately? And what can be done with that data? And are you seeing anything with whether it's the American data privacy and protection act or the draft regulations for CPR a or what's going on with the digital markets act and the digital services act that is kind of indicative of regulators saying, okay, we really need to put actual guardrails here beyond just recommendations or options. Yeah. I think we are starting to see the movement like you said, Tim from. Encouragement and guidance to more clear guard Wales that, depending on the company, there are some ad tech companies that welcome this legislation and clarity so that a business can be built because the difficulty we're having are in these constant shifting. In an eagerness to try to address this issue, which is data being collected for one purpose and being used for another purpose or an unintended consequence of data collection, we have now a situation and I know we're talking to mostly domestic audience, but I think it's important for people to appreciate their a 150 countries now with data protection laws around the world. So if you're sitting in the U.S. working for a global company, you've got counterparts all across the globe that have to start thinking about data privacy and may not even know. I mean, I just saw last week, I think swaziland just came with their data protection. There are so many new initiatives coming out DMA, like you mentioned in Europe as big and getting a lot of attention. But it's almost like with all the regulation, there's some minefield for companies approaching the space. And so a lot of thought, I think, has to happen at leadership levels because I do think at this point in time, some of these mishaps with data or disconnects about what regulators think and what legislators think and what business thinks has driven or was the catalyst anyway. At the beginning of the quarter in 2022, was the catalyst for what has impacted our markets to the tune of 1.3 trillion of market cap and NASDAQ going out the door. So these are real jobs, real healthcare, real life real estate, et cetera, for a lot of people. And so we've got to really be thoughtful and get this right because so many people, human beings are depending on us doing this correctly. Right. And as you mentioned, I mean, just here in the states, there's a patchwork of different state privacy laws. There's California over Vermont, Nevada, Illinois, you're not better than me. At some point where 5 now and then a bunch of other bills pinning across the country. I had a map at almost everything was either a bill that had been attempted and wasn't successful this year or bills that are in process. And then you've got the 5 that are been enacted already. So the whole country is looking at this now on a state by state basis. Right. And so that's led to meta CEO of Mark Zuckerberg, for example, being among those calling for a federal privacy law, and I think that's what extent they've been explicit about this, but wanting that federal privacy law to then preempt the states laws because then that'll make compliance easier. Okay, companies just have to worry about complying with the federal privacy law, not the states laws. But that's not really that's not necessarily the case with the American data privacy and protection act, where it does preempt states laws, but then it has all these exceptions, including California's privacy law. And so how does that complicate the picture if this bill ends up becoming the law, which that's another conversation we're going to have to have on just the likelihood of that? Exactly. So preemption was a big part of what was stalling progress. On the bill. And I think right now we're seeing Republicans and Democrats sort of reaching consensus that it's what I call sort of partial preemption. In other words, there's preemption, but if there are laws that are stricter, and we've seen there's actually there's actually a little history on this for other privacy national bills. And so I was always a proponent of, yes, it would be great to get preemption, so we have certainty. But with California's privacy law, still pulling in the 90s, 90 percentile of approval rating here. It's almost inconceivable that a large California delegation would go into Congress and take positions against the California consumer privacy act or the California privacy rights act, whether you're Republican or Democrat in Congress right now. Given those realities, it always, I always wanted to think about plan B and it seems to me that we have other precedent like the children's online privacy protection act. And the gram leech blyly act for financial data and HIPAA for health data, where there is preemption, but not if there is something more protective in place. And same thing with can spam. So that if you have more protective email laws in place, then the federal can spam law does not permit preempt those. And that's why California has a fraudulent emails statute. That's why California still has the California confidentiality of medical information act that is stricter than HIPAA. And we also have our California financial information privacy act, which is. But in the scheme of things, when we think about federal privacy laws related to financial, when we think about privacy laws related to financial, we think about. And we don't necessarily think about California's fipa. And I just think that if a federal law were to come into play, that would dwarf everything. And I think you would see that California and I'm talking we're both talking here from Los Angeles. As much as we'd love to think of it as the center of the world, it would, with the federal law, it would dwarf what is happening in the states. And all the focus and all the energy is going to shift to federal even without full preemption if past is prologue. We're going to take a quick break to hear from our sponsor and we'll be right back. I'm Christina ko, senior editor at custom. To today media's in-house agency. In this podcast interstitial story sponsored by Amazon ads, we speak with adverse dismay, vice president of people experience and technology for IMDb and Amazon ads, and Melissa origin, cofounder and CEO of origin bees. About the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and how Amazon's black business accelerator program is supporting black owned businesses. The Amazon ads recently commissioned the immune research environments research called the higher impact 2022 report. Now, this global report focuses on consumer brand sentiment as it relates to topics around sustainability around diversity, equity and inclusion, and also brand authenticity, which is really something that in a brand care about and consumers care about as well. And the research shows that consumers are stepping up their expectations. In fact, 46% of respondents agree that they go out of their way to choose brands that have a corporate commitment to the AI. So Amazon launched the black business accelerator called a BBA. It's a $150 million commitment from Amazon. And this is dedicated to helping build sustainable diversity and provide growth opportunities for black owned businesses. The initiative which explicitly targets barriers to access opportunity and advancement created by systemic racism across America was created in partnership with a black employee network and a calling coalition of strategic partners. The BBA aims to drive economic equity for black entrepreneurs, providing them with resources to thrive as entrepreneurs and business leaders. We provide access to financial assistance, strategic business guidance and mentorship. One company with inclusion at the center of its business model is origin bees. A member of the BBA program. Its cofounder and CEO Melissa shares how becoming a part of this program has helped shape her business. Origin, bees was born out of finding a way to encourage my daughter's self love journey. We struggled with her confidence when she had started school and there wasn't much diversity in her class. She was the only black girl. And quickly, she began to question her beauty. And as I talked to other parents and realized that this struggle wasn't alone, so many other parents had the same struggle with their children. I decided that we needed to do something about it. And that's how origin bees was born. Origin bees expelled ORI JI N, B, EES, and it's the acronym for our representation. It's just inclusion normalized, beautifully, empowering every soul. Since we joined the black business accelerator program, we've seen so much growth in different areas. We've seen growth in our sales. We've had opportunities for exposure through media that we would not have had otherwise. As a small business, we're limited in budget and the black business accelerator program has given us opportunities that we wouldn't have had to get in front of much larger audiences to be able to introduce our brands to be able to tell our brand story and to be able to share what we are about. And we've seen the ripple effect of that. You've been listening to Melissa origin, cofounder and CEO of origin bees. And Everest is, vice president of people experience and technology at IMDb and Amazon ads. Our sponsor on this episode. And now back to the digit a podcast. Oh, that is contingent on this bill becoming a law. Is there any reason to believe that this bill would make it through Congress, especially I think a lot has been made of all the August recess is coming up and then a senator Maria Cantwell has said she's not so psyched on this. She wants her own bill to be the one that comes through, but I think some criticisms of that one as well because there's always criticisms this is politics we're talking about. And then there's the midterm election cycle. And there's, I think, I was reading with wicker, there's the idea that, oh, he's going to be moving to another committee and then Ted Cruz would be taking his spot on the committee that's kind of behind the American data privacy and protection act. And that Ted Cruz isn't someone who's really taken a strong position on privacy so that would not be a priority. So it seems like if it's going to happen, it has to happen now, but I don't know if there's any indication on whether there's a likelihood of happening now. What's your read? You know, I go back and forth on this all the time and one of my partners in our D.C. office Howard waltzed man who is working with the business roundtable. I literally talked to him on a daily basis, Howard, what have you heard? How is this looking? And it's really tough to say right now. I think that there is general, from what I'm gathering, pessimism, that this is going to happen in time to take place this year in 2022 before midterm elections that the consensus appears to be like there's momentum. And this is a great first start, but not for start, but to actually get the bill and the edits out and this is a really serious effort. That will most likely have to be picked up again in 2023. And the reason for that is a couple things what I'm hearing. I just heard something that was really disturbing that in light of what has gone on with the Supreme Court on the policy issues associated with roe, that there are some legislators taking the position that if anything comes up on privacy that they won't vote for it unless that decision is addressed within the context of the bill. And I know that there are efforts to try to disassociate the.