Movement for an Open Web

The open web is under threat. Movement for an Open Web (MOW) is a nonprofit organisation registered in the UK with a global mission to open the web for everyone. We’re high level data and legal experts monitoring and acting to represent the interests of our anonymous members versus bigtech companies at regulatory bodies. Here’s a snapshot to look at the ecosystem we’re working with.  Our Co-founders, James Rosewell and Tim Cowen are enthusiastic about further growing the MOW members, including publishers, agencies, digital service providers, brands who want to compete with tech giants under the MOW umbrella, using MOW’s expertise. Follow our Linkedin page and let’s talk! For more info email: [email protected] #openweb #movement #nonprofit #faircompetition #digitalcompetition 

In today’s digital landscape, privacy is a fundamental human right. Yet consumer expectations vary widely, which require solutions beyond one-size-fits-all concepts. Striking the right balance for responsible data processing always requires a proper assessment of the potential risks of harm to be weighed against societal benefits. The potential risk of harm from data processing depends on both the type and context of the data being processed. Mitigating privacy risks demands a spectrum of options to meet diverse societal needs. While competition can enhance choices and privacy, Big Tech centralization stifles them. Improved transparency is vital for consumers to make their informed choices, and clear guidelines for responsible data handling can simplify compliance for organizations. A new approach to user choice will be required. Please follow the link below to read MOW’s Data Governance and Accountability Principles which aim to help guide policy makers in truly improving privacy online without centralizing greater control over the internet into Big Tech’s hands. https://lnkd.in/etrxkav8

Should web browsers be regulated? In a recent interview with Digiday, we put forward our positive view for the future of the Open Web - you can read the article here: https://lnkd.in/ddMcmnW7 For further reading, MOW's positive vision for the future of the Open Web, which focuses on breaking up the browsers, can be found on our website: https://lnkd.in/dFDw3BhV

In this rather successful month for MOW, find out exactly what's been going on by reading this month's newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/dadgJJZC

🚨 Whilst Google's announcement concerning their Privacy Sandbox is a welcome development, it is not yet competition on the merits. CMA asking for submissions by 12th August. 🚨 1️⃣ The "new approach" will only work if it's applied equally to Google's own products and services. That means notices about interoperability, personalization, data use, including advertising or personalization need to be the same for all parties. (Reminder; there is no such thing as first and third, it is a fiction). 2️⃣ Guarantees backed with legally binding commitments to the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators are needed to prevent Google revisiting these decisions at some random point in the future. 3️⃣ Google's Privacy Sandbox is much more than cookies. The commitment needs to be extended to all other forms of interoperability. 4️⃣ DMA and DMU need to apply the same remedies to Apple. That means restoring interoperability on Safari. See Google's and CMA's updates behind the article: 👇 CMA - https://lnkd.in/eRXKyKmA Google - https://lnkd.in/euXJAw_H

Google has announced that it is pulling back on its plans to remove third party cookies - a key goal for MOW. This is a clear admission by Google that their plan to enclose the Open Web has failed. Their goal was to remove the interoperability that enabled businesses to work together without interference from monopolists but a combination of regulatory and industry pressure has put paid to that. We’ve long called for Privacy Sandbox to be allowed to compete on its merits. If advertisers prefer its approach and consumers value the alleged privacy benefits, then it will be universally adopted. What wasn’t acceptable was for a solution like this to be forced on the market whilst removing any alternative choices. However, the devil is in the detail. Google say that they’re going to be offering consumers an informed choice. What’s important is that this choice is truly informed, unbiased and applies equally to Google’s own properties as it does to other B2B and B2C providers. Movement for an Open Web will be writing to the CMA before 12th August to ensure this is in place before they think of letting Google off the commitments. There’s nothing in the announcement that prevents Google doing this all over again in the future. Regulators will need to ensure there are legally binding commitments on Google to guarantee interoperability in perpetuity. We started this process in September 2020. It’s now clear regulators are having an impact and they’re only just turning their attention to Apple and Google’s wider product range. After all, Google and Apple work as one company where Google pay Apple $20bn per year, and Apple receive 36% of search revenue. That unholy relationship needs to be unwound. https://lnkd.in/ePByQayg

Digiday has published an important piece looking at fundamental issues in Google's Privacy Sandbox Terms of Service. According to analysis by MOW's lawyers, the ToS is 'discriminatory and one sided', with one anonymous source in Digiday's piece saying 'These are just not valid business terms'. https://lnkd.in/eFtWnsvD For more information read our full press release and report on MOW's blog. https://lnkd.in/eWzjY47Q

DRIVING DIGITAL GROWTH: The new UK Labour government is keen – like everyone in the country – to drive economic growth.  Digital, as one of the country’s most vibrant sectors, has to play a big part in this.   At the Movement for an Open Web we think there are five actions the government could take to turbocharge the UK digital market.    End the £1000 per household Google, Apple and Facebook tax – Through their monopoly power, the platforms are costing UK households £1000 each through the artificially inflated cost of advertising.  Reducing this hidden cost on the sale of products would drive growth.    The CMA 2020 Digital Markets report, based on 2019 numbers, calculated  the impact as raising the prices of advertising for each UK household to be about £500.  In 2024 more recent numbers give us over £1,000 per household     Break up Google and Apple’s walled gardens – The UK’s digital strength is being crushed by the weight of the Google and Apple’s monopoly, stunting economic growth and costing households.  With the new powers of the Digital Markets Unit the UK government should join the US and the EU Commission in their efforts to break up their dominance.    Enable advertising interoperability - we use numbers on our credit cards and our mobile phones use numbers in sim cards for communication every day without any issue. However, the use of alphanumeric random IDs and cookies by Google and Apple is being demonised when used by others. The ICO and CMA should use their powers to guarantee interoperability  including the matching of buyers and sellers of digital advertising, boosting the industry’s ability to function effectively and compete with the Google and Apple monopoly.    Clear Privacy Laws – when data is public, non-personal, it should be able to be used freely. This needs to be clarified in law rather than ICO discretionary guidance. The UK Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is currently at Committee Stage in the House of Lords and could be passed with that clarification as soon as possible.    Use DMU powers to unbundle AI from big tech now – with Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, Apple’s Apple Intelligence being tied into their platforms, their market dominance becomes more entrenched. This undermines the opportunities for a large number of smaller and more innovative UK businesses. The DMU need to act swiftly to prevent tying and bundling and require interoperability among AI solutions to prevent it from being monopolised by a small number of existing players.      These simple steps would enable the UK’s digital market to drive sustainable growth on the basis of a well regulated and competitive marketplace.  

APPLE’S IDENTITY HYPOCRISY: Apple has made it their business to block others from using random identifiers (in the form of cookies and advertising ids) to help improve personalisation - so it is surprising that they openly admit to using the same technology approach themselves.    On it’s Apple News service, the company proudly states that it uses random identifiers to personalise the service in a privacy-improving way. Furthermore, the company admits to using the same approach in its now publicly available submission to the CMA’s Mobile Ecosystems report, where it says that, “If data is needed to make a service work, as far as possible Apple associates the collection with random identifiers and not the user’s identity.” (Page 11, paragraph 30).    It also admits to the same in its iTunes Privacy Statement where it says “The information used to determine which ads are relevant to you is tied to random identifiers and not to your Apple ID.”    And why is it so important to highlight these statements?  Because Apple has gone out of its way to prevent others from using these same benefits. For example; by blocking third party cookies – a method of passing random identifiers – in Safari.    It’s yet another example of the platforms’ hypocrisy.  Their argument that cookies and other forms of interoperable technology are somehow a privacy issue are completely undermined by the fact that they continue to use these same approaches themselves.    Our argument would be that if its good enough for Apple why can they not allow others to use it?      Apple has been subject to enough privacy fines to undermine the claim that they’re somehow more trustworthy - so the only answer can be that they know that it’s a competitive advantage for them to have this technology whilst preventing others from using it.    There’s also the question of whether Apple’s actions are compliant with the EC’s DMA, but that’s for another time… 

Press Gazette have covered the latest Sandbox updates from the IAB Tech Lab and Criteo. https://lnkd.in/efmiStbW