Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:10]
B
Welcome to the Monopoly Report. The Monopoly Report is dedicated to chronicling and analyzing the impact of antitrust and other regulations on the global advertising economy. If you are new to the Monopoly Report, you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter at Monopoly Market and you can check out all the Monopoly report podcasts@monopolyreportpod.com Al I'm Alan Chappelle. Last week's newsletter focused on remedies for the Google search trial. Given that the DoJ has floated the idea of a forced sale of Chrome, I walk through some of the potential landing places for Chrome and candidly, there just aren't a lot of great options. And just maybe we need to rethink the role of the browser more broadly, both in terms of user functionality and how it relates to the ads business. So on this week's pod, I am really happy to have David leduc of the VP of Public Policy for the Network Advertising Initiative. The NAI is a trade association that was formed 25 years ago to create privacy standards in digital advertising. David has been with the NAI for six and a half years and has previously worked on public policy and legislative issues in the software industry. I consider David a friend and one of the most knowledgeable people out there when it comes to privacy and regulation. David is also unafraid to call me completely crazy when I make bold predictions. So we see what happens. Hey David, welcome to the pod. How you doing? Good.
- [01:31]
A
Hey Alan, thanks for having me.
- [01:32]
B
It's great to have you on. So I've known you now for I think six or seven years and I should say that just by way of disclosure, I'm the current board chair of the nei and so we work pretty closely together. And historically, in addition to creating privacy standards, the NEI has been the public policy voice of the third party ad tech community. And so I want a level set for the audience here. So there's sort of a perception within ad tech, you know, even at the executive level, at times within the business side. But there's this, this perception that you can, you know, sort of skate by without paying much attention to privacy and regulatory rules. So one of the things that I'm hoping to drive home during this discussion is the idea that putting your head in the sand in these issues is just not an effective strategy.
- [02:17]
A
So, so let's just take.
- [02:19]
B
Tell us a little bit about your role within the nai, because I think you do one of those super important roles, but it's one of those roles that maybe folks don't know about. Yeah, great.
- [02:30]
A
I'D love to do that. And Alan, right off the bat, I mean, I think I'm your man. If you want to talk about why people can't bury their heads in the sand, that's a major theme of mine and I'd really like to talk about that. So I'm the Vice president for public Policy at the nai, and I think your question is, well, what does that mean? It means I do a lot of conventional lobbying focused on legislative engagement, trying to shape bills and then, and regulations. But at the nai, we focus a lot more on regulatory stuff. So we spend a lot of time engaging directly with regulators because the laws are evolving so much. They're ambiguous and they're overlapping in this landscape that we're in. So we spend a lot of time doing that. And that's kind of like a less understood side of kind of public policy and I think less focused on. And I think it's incredibly important and it's work that I love to do. But going back to the point about whether or not you can have your head in the sand, I've done tech policy for almost 30 years now, and that's since the beginning of the Internet. And never in the history has there been a time where I think industry and business practices have been so shaped and will be so shaped by public policy than we're seeing right now. So you got to pay attention to it, you got to be shaping your business around it and engaging.
- [03:48]
B
Just to be clear, the NAI's primary focus is sort of to be the voice of the third party ad tech community. Right. And so, and that's a community that I think historically has been a little bit underserved in part because nobody knows that we exist and everybody knows who Google is, I suppose. But, but within the, the plumbing of how digital ads work, it doesn't seem like a lot of people really know that that exists. So I would imagine part of your role there is just kind of educating regulators on, you know, why we exist and why we're so important.
- [04:17]
A
No, yeah, that's a great point, Alan, because I think, and I kind of take it as a given in certain circles, but many people don't realize that. They're like, yes, in terms of the voices that are out there speaking on behalf of and representing third party digital ad tech, that's us and that's me. Like, I'm, I'm, I'm the leading proponent in the public policy space of that industry. I would say I feel very strongly that's the case. And yeah, and it does. A lot of what we do is education. There's. There's such a lack of understanding and now is a more critical time than ever because there's just such a focus on our industry. In saying that, it may sound a little bit trite, but it just keeps getting more and more and more. So even there's been a focus on our industry since the beginning of the CCPA and before then, but it just keeps getting stronger and more folks looking at it in different ways at different levels. So education is key.
- [05:09]
B
Well, let's get to that. So what are the things that regulators are focusing on? What parts of the digital ad space are really in the crosshairs? Why now and why?
- [05:19]
A
Well, I think it may sound a little boring to start out with the obvious, but I think it's important to mention sensitive data. I mean, where is all the enforcement happening? Where has it been happening? Where is it likely to continue to be heavily focused? Sensitive data, health, precise location, kids, no secret. But it's worth mentioning that, yeah, look there, in terms of where priorities are and are going to continue to be, that's not likely to change because that's where there's the most harm. And frankly, I think that makes sense.
- [05:48]
B
Right?
- [05:49]
A
I think we can all agree with that. Like, focus on the stuff that matters most. And then the other element of that, as I just mentioned a little bit, is data brokers. You know, again, like there's been a focus on data brokers. You know, the Federal Trade Commission, the Congress, you know, have been talking about data brokers for a long time. The Fair Credit Reporting act is a data broker law, the preeminent data broker law. But we're being talked about and thought about in different ways. And that's something that I think you're aware of, and maybe some folks that are out there in industry aren't as much aware of. And I think this is a good opportunity to talk about that and say, especially what we've seen this year in terms of it didn't just start this year, but really ramped up this year is the focus on national security and the intersection with those issues. So not just consumer privacy. And the other element of that, to state the obvious to some, but the data broker conversations used to be focused on traditional data brokers, those that are covered by the FCRA in the credit world. But so much of the focus, the majority of it these days, is focused on our members, ad tech companies that are data brokers for consumer data, and the fact that the national security community and policymakers at every level, in the most important places in the country are focused on this data and threats that it poses to national security. That is a super big deal that I can't stress enough how possible it is that it could change our entire industry.
- [07:11]
B
Well, and that's a fantastic point, because I've been doing this a while. So over the last 20 years, whenever some new law or something was discussed in public policy circles, the retort from the ads world was, okay, guys, what's the real harm? So you got the blue shoe ad rather than the red shoe ad. Like, what's the harm here? And what's really changed now is that over the last few years, there are specific things that our critics are able to point to. You said national security. You can say a whole bunch of things within the precise location space and even in the health space. And so, like, how has that changed your interactions with policymakers?
- [07:51]
A
It's made it a lot harder, and it's. And it's put us in a place where we need to work harder too, and we need to do more. I mean, the obvious stuff on the privacy harm side being, you know, the outing of a gay priest due to precise location information and that being connected, like, that's terrible stuff, right? Like, that's a. That's a quintessential privacy harm. And even though that's an outlier case, that's the kind of thing. There's a handful of those things that the policymakers hear about and they point to and say, like, wow, that's crazy. And it is crazy, right? But now that we're in an era where there's so much focus on China and Russia and recognition that they are, in fact, scooping up data, all the focus on TikTok, and that's become something that's more of a conventional and mainstream discussion, at least in Washington. And it makes it harder for us because not only are we talking about and battling against and trying to prevent harms and bad actors that are bringing down the industry on the consumer side, but this is a whole different element where our ecosystem wasn't designed for that either. As we all know. Our ecosystem just kind of. It evolved like most tech ecosystems do. It's not like it was planned and built meticulously. Right? It evolved over time, and it evolved. OpenRTB. If you just look at the name OpenRTB, that's the whole point of this, open. But now people are looking at it and saying, like, well, maybe is it too open? You know, like, can the Chinese get in there?
- [09:11]
B
Well, and that's a great point, David, because just this week the FTC came up with what I felt was a little bit of a bombshell in connection with the settlement with the mobile data broker, Mobile wall. I want to hone in on one aspect of that order because there's a whole bunch of things to unpack within that, you know, specifically, you know, what is a sensitive point of interest and what should companies be doing to make sure that they're not inadvertently collecting that type of data? But the thing that really blew me away there was the assertion that RTB data in and of itself is sensitive. And this has sort of been a part of a longer term campaign by the FTC to really drive home that the, the pseudonymous data being processed in an ads context could be considered sensitive. And I just love your thoughts about, you know, placing this into some context because I, I think this would blow away some business people.
- [10:03]
A
Yeah, Alan, I'm glad you raised that and as always, I'm glad you're ahead of the curve. I'm glad that you read that. I've been pouring through those cases and more important than the cases, I've been pouring through the opinions, the concurring and dissenting opinions from the Republicans because I think, as we all know, we're likely to have some shift in policy at the ftc. And I think we're asking ourselves, like, how much of a shift? What shift? And to your point, Alan, there's a lot in these cases where there's broad bipartisan agreement about potential harms, you know, so I mean, I think at least half of the case, and I can't get into all the details, but at least half and the potential, the substantial risk or the risk of substantial injury that is shared about sensitive data related to sensitive locations. So that's kind of baked in. But the thing that blew me away, and you mentioned, you know, we talk about rtb, Commissioner Ferguson, who's one of the Republican commissioners, came out and said in his opinion that bid sniffing is an unfair practice because consumers don't know about it and they can't control it and it poses danger. And it came out. So here's a Republican commissioner saying, I concur about that. So that jives with everything I was just saying. And now we're seeing it in an FTC case. And because that's coming from a Republican, we don't know what the future commission's going to do. But I think it's a very fair interpretation expectation that the commission is going to take that. And I think that's a fair perspective. He went on to say that while you're breaking the terms of service in the exchange, and that's not necessarily an unfair act, but under Section 5, the fact that you're collecting this, there's a substantial risk of injury. It's an unfair practice. So it's not clear whether or not that just pertains to sensitive data bit sniffing or all data bit sniffing. But that's something we've been focused on at the NAI and wanting to try to tighten up. And those are the kinds of things that I think we can, as an industry fix and change. I view a lot of that as kind of, I don't want to call it good news, but positive to recognize that let's identify what's harmful and bad and stop that, and let's tighten up the ecosystem so we can preserve the good practices, because that, that's what we're all about.
- [12:07]
B
But that's a challenge right there. So, okay, so I, you know, I'll go on record, you know, 10 years ago, there were a number of location graph companies whose primary model seemed to be sniffing just bidding, you know, outrageous amounts on exchanges, knowing you weren't going to win, just so you can collect the data. That's a bad idea. But the challenge here is that once you start really reining in that type of practice, like, what are the unintended consequences? So, you know, mobile wallas, if you look at their order, it basically can't do anything with the data except bid on the, the auction. Okay, wait, does that mean can they, can they use it for targeted ads? Can they use it downstream for attribution? My read of Mobile Wallace says that they can't. All right, so what happens when that concept, a very restrictive concept about what one can do with bid request data, you know, what happens is that gets, you know, pushed out there because, I don't know, it gets included in, in some new state's law or gets put into somebody else's order. What are your thoughts there?
- [13:09]
A
Well, I think it's a really astute observation. I've got a bunch of thoughts, but I guess before I get into that, I raised the question, like, do people know what bid sniffing is? It's not like glue sniffing. And you and I just launched into a conversation about it. But is it worth mentioning? Kind of like what?
- [13:22]
B
I think that's a great idea. When Ari is here, he always keeps me grounded on this kinds of stuff because we've got our audience here is sort of like half in the business community. You probably know very well what bid sniffing is, but then folks who are more on the policy and regulatory side might not know. So do you want to just walk through that?
- [13:39]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think. And you know the tech side a little bit more than me, but bid sniffing is a term that we use referring to companies that are essentially participating in an ad exchange where there's all this data flowing through and companies are collecting data for the purposes of making a bid and getting the ad served. Bid sniffing is the practice of just kind of gathering that data without the intentions of making a bid. So if you're doing that, you're most likely, if not certainly breaking the terms of service of the exchange, because they all say, like, hey, you can't just hoover up data in here. But that's what I view it as is like intentional data hoovering. That's outside the terms and the goals of ad serving for the purposes of enriching data profiles and things like that. But so then your question that you just mentioned was like, well, what? Yeah, so there are all these stipulations and restrictions on this company in the settlement agreement, and there was a lot of back and forth on that as well, and a lot of concern voiced by the Republican commissioners on that about, like, hey, you know, the commission's gone a bit too far, and we don't have time here, I think, to unpack that, but I would say that's very important. And your question about, like, well, does that go anywhere else? I think that remains to be seen whether or not policymakers more broadly look at settlements and try to build. Build those into restrictions in legislation. So they're preventative, but that's really dangerous. And I think, you know, some of the commissioners have pointed that out, and I think that's something that we need to work collectively to. To ourselves define. And again, this is an area where I think we can do a lot and tighten up. And I know the NAI is going to continue to focus on this even more and more than we already are, to try to help create kind of rules of the road voluntarily that I think people. People will follow. And so we can help establish, like, what should policy say about this? So I'm really intrigued about the opportunity to. To dig in more because I've been raising these issues as you know, for years. I mean, literally, we've been talking about exchanges and rtb. This isn't new. This was already debated over in Europe right across the pond. The notion that RTB may be a little bit too open. I mean, it needs to be open, but maybe it needs to be just a little tighter. And so I view it as a necessary evolution that we can address.
- [15:49]
B
Yeah, I mean, this is one of those natural developments of a marketplace and a way that you can create some level of standard. However, there's a fear, I think, of maybe throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, but I guess we'll have to see how that all develops.
- [16:03]
A
Yeah. But I think the good news, though, Alan, from my perspective, is people criticize self reg and they have for a while now. It's like, but self reg has inherent limitations, not just in our industry, but every industry. Everybody should know that regulation within the marketplace, not by policy, it's just, it's different, it's harder, it's not quite as effective as real regulations when you have a cop on the beat and you have the ability to really punish. So if the FTC is now going to step in and say, like, hey, you know, while an exchange might not have had the ability to identify you or doing this and kick you out for breaking their terms of service, we're going to do that, you know, so that I think. Don't you think, Alan, that'll change. That can help to change the landscape. Like, well, oh, God, the FTC might come after you if you're doing that in a way that no one else was really going to do that before. No one else really could have done it could.
- [16:52]
B
And it'll certainly enable the exchanges to do a better, more effective job of policing. Because I think that, you know, I think we, we had reached the point where if you're, if you're spending enough with the exchange that they might look the other way and in terms of some bid listening. And so I think that's probably nearing an end. And so that's, you know, companies need to keep that in mind. You're going to need to adjust your practices because if they're based on a. If your product doesn't work, but for listening in on bids that you don't win, you may need to change your offering.
- [17:23]
A
Definitely. And sorry if we dove into, like a privacy nerd rabbit hole here.
- [17:27]
B
Well, no, but this is a, this whole podcast is about the ad space and this is a core component. But, you know, it's funny, we've been now talking for 17 minutes and on policy and on privacy, and we have not mentioned cookies yet. So I want to get to that and maybe just ask a kind of a dumb question, you know, do all these issues go away if we move away from the Third party cookies, you know, if we, if everybody just moved to ID free or ID less ads or first party advertising or seller def audiences or clean rooms, you know, does all this stuff go away?
- [18:00]
A
Yes. I mean, absolutely. I think it all goes away. I mean, I think it's all just the cookie. I'm obviously kidding. I'm obviously kidding. I wanted to see your face. You know, my mom used to say, yeah, ask a stupid question. What happens, Ellen? You get a stupid answer. No, I'm kidding and making fun of you. No, I mean, so the obvious answer is like, no, not much changes. You know, I think the way I look at it is it's PI. Right. It's either PI or it's not PI. Third party cookie is PI. Most of the third party cookie alternatives, traditional alternatives in terms of identification are PI. So I don't think a lot changes in terms of cookies. I think, I think everybody's, a lot of people have already moved beyond cookies in the marketplace. So that's my short answer on that.
- [18:42]
B
Yeah. And look, I'm going to confess, I go back and forth almost on a daily basis as between the, like, oh, let's just get it over with and move to the next thing. And then the other side of me is like, well, I don't know. I mean, you're, you're, you know, if you're going to allow the large platforms access to data that everybody else is deprived of access to, that's not a great thing for competition. And that's sort of where I wanted to talk to you a little bit about, like, how do you balance privacy and competition?
- [19:11]
A
Yeah. So I agree. And to be clear about, like, yeah, I mean, I think everything you say is true about cookies, but I don't, I don't view cookies as being essential to being able to keep the industry afloat. Right. Like, I mean, I personally think some of these other mechanisms are superior in many ways and can provide for more, more transparency and control. And so that's always my goal is to maximize transparency and control for consumers while still doing what you're talking about, which is preserving our industry. My industry.
- [19:39]
B
Yeah, but so cookies are both, they're like a metaphor and a red herring because when, when people say, oh, we get rid of cookies and then, then they're using probabilistic, it's sort of like, okay, wait, why is that different? And usually you don't get a great answer.
- [19:55]
A
Well, yeah, I think, yeah. And then we could talk about deterministic. Like, I would rather move to a solution like, like That I don't know if it's practical or not, but I think in many ways that, you know, that could be better.
- [20:04]
B
Going back to competition.
- [20:06]
A
Yeah, if you want to dive into competition. You know, I think it's, it's a really important question and I know it's one that you spend a lot of time and I think this POD spends a lot of time on. I think it's essential that we focus on this. I think from a public policy perspective, it's super challenging when you're talking about balancing competition and privacy because it's a trade off and policymaking is often a series of trade offs, but you've got privacy, so you're trying to protect consumers from data harms and you've got competition where you're ultimately trying to protect consumers from harms in the marketplace. And when you're coming up with policies and you're trying to balance them, which a lot of policymakers are doing, and I commend them for that. I don't think there are a lot of great success cases yet in terms of where this has been done effectively, unfortunately. I think the UK went about it really well in terms of procedure by bringing in a data regulator and a competition regulator. But I don't think anyone's been terribly happy with that on the privacy side or the competition side. But I think it's important and I don't think they should give up. And I guess the point I would make that I think is the most important for audience on this is like we all fundamentally believe, I think we kind of know how essential ad tech is for competition and then it's not a level playing field and then it's really increasingly more challenging for small publishers and advertisers and that they're relying on ad tech. But that's not out there as fact. Policymakers don't get that. A lot of them don't believe it. I've had really important policymakers like the leading staff that are writing bills like APRA say, we don't believe this. There's no proof that you guys are essential for competition and driving prices down. And there's no proof and there's all this research out there that a lot of us don't agree with and don't support and don't think is right, that just says like, no, this stuff isn't good. And then you've got the DCN out there, Jason Kent, I think you might have had him on your pod making arguments, you've got that community making arguments, saying like, these Guys aren't helpful for us and want, you know, and like that's not, I think that's wrong. You know, I think some publishers feel that way, but I don't think most do. And I don't think advertisers feel that way. But I think that's part of the narrative that's out there. So we've now more than ever got to do a better case of explaining what I believe is the fundamental reality, which is like publishers and advertisers and ad tech all need to work together to provide for a more competitive environment in light of the large market players. But we got to get that case out.
- [22:35]
B
Yeah, I would agree with that. And look, I've been pretty critical of the competition markets authority and the privacy sandbox stuff. But the one thing I do think is really important is that there is some value to having a competition regulator point to things and saying, hey, see this thing out there? See these progressive web apps that Apple's policies have made more difficult to implement. Here's an example where under the guise of privacy or security, they are harming innovation. And unfortunately I don't think we're quite at the stage where we're at the pointing out issue, issue spotting, but we're not quite at the point where like that's materializing necessarily into policy. And I guess that's where you come in.
- [23:21]
A
Yeah, I agree. I think that's the case and as I said, I think, and I think you make a good example there of some of the like little nooks and crannies and where there are some positives. But so I think given that we're likely to have a bit of a reset here in Washington, I think it's a good opportunity. When I say reset, I think, you know, a reframing or rethinking of how to approach privacy. I think most of us expect the incoming Trump administration and Congress to still be quite focused. The FTC will be focused on competition quite similarly. So I think there's a real opportunity to look at these two and try to be really having them both in mind and balancing them. That wasn't happening the last debate. Adppa apra, I don't think really tried to do that very well thought much about it. And I think, you know, I think especially the first version which is like a giveaway to like the really large platforms. And so I think, I hope and I think that there's an opportunity to do some rethinking here.
- [24:20]
B
And so to that end, what do you think are the 2025 policy challenges. What are the things that you think you're going to be spending a lot of time on in 2025?
- [24:30]
A
Well, as I mentioned and you know, and go back and say it and it's so important that it bears repeating. The focus on data brokers is not going away, it's getting evens, stronger. If anyone thinks that like a reset is going to be the Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and others in Congress just giving up on this, like, think again. No, you know, that's not the case for privacy reasons and it's not the case for national security reasons. So first and foremost, like it's going to be tough times. But what the CPPA is doing under the Delete act with this registry, an opt out mechanism, is enormous for our industry. And it, as history has shown, it may not stop there. The Do Not Call registry started in, I think it was Florida, started in a state and then became a national thing. So anyone who thinks this is just cabined to liberal California or something, I would say think again. So that's going to continue again, I think that we're going to be spending a lot of time on the sensitive data stuff and I think if you talk about policy outside in Washington, but even outside of Washington, I think there's going to be a lot of focus on data minimization. And I think many of your listeners probably already are familiar with the conversations that are going on.
- [25:41]
B
We aren't really good at that in the ad tech world. Data minimization?
- [25:45]
A
Yeah, no, it's, it's a tough thing and it means different things to different people. Right. You know, I think that's a chat like, yeah, data minimization isn't, you know, it's a term that I think people interpret differently. Like you can have data minimization and advertising. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. But some people use the term data minimization to mean like, oh well, you can't, you can only do it for this one purpose. And I think that's fundamentally wrong. I think we all think that's fundamentally wrong and we need to help get to a place where you're actually, you are minimizing data, but you're not just stop using it for valuable practices. Like that doesn't make sense.
- [26:16]
B
Right. But if you go, and I will, as I go in talking to the data science teams at any ad tech company, it becomes a spinal tap like conversation because it's sort of like, like, you know, it's like, yeah, but we might need this data yeah.
- [26:30]
A
And so you know what? I'm gonna, I'm gonna say I'm gonna go back to the FTC decisions this week that you mentioned that it's like, everybody should read these. Like, go read these things. They're fascinating. This is another area of focus where the Republican commissioners essentially said, like, we don't agree that data minimization is, you know, or the retention, rather indefinite retention is an unfair practice because there are benefits. Commissioner Holyoke, the other Republican commissioner, specifically defended keeping data to do ad measurement and attribution. I mean, that's wonderful. I mean, talk about a silver lining. That's wonderful to have a commissioner recognizing the value of this stuff.
- [27:07]
B
Yeah, sure.
- [27:08]
A
Bad things can happen when you retain data. Sure, you should try to get rid of data you don't need. But it's really refreshing to me to hear a commissioner coming out and pointing that out in a settlement. Settlement and saying, like, we might not have everything right here. Like, that's, I think, really, really powerful and strong.
- [27:23]
B
Great point. So I, I want to move to what I'm going to call some quick hits here. So just a bunch of questions, you know, as close to yes or no you can give me. Would love, but I'd love to be able to pick your brain here. So the first one, I think is an easy one, but who knows? Will Lina Khan remain at the ftc?
- [27:40]
A
No. I'll give you straight answers. No.
- [27:42]
B
No. Okay. Well, yeah, I think, I think that's.
- [27:44]
A
If you want to dig in, pursue. Otherwise, I'll try to give you. Yes, one more.
- [27:48]
B
So at the state level, you know, we've got what, 19. I've lost count. But 19 or so states have their own privacy laws. But I will say that there is not a lot of divergence as between standards. There's a whole bunch of nuances. I don't want to minimize those. But, like, they're all basically notice and choice laws with DSAR rights and a couple of other bells and whistles. Do you see, going forward, states changing from the current framework that they've. That most states have adopted?
- [28:18]
A
Yes, yes. I mean, we're seeing evolution in new laws, as we did in Maryland, we may see in Vermont and Maine. And even more important than that, sorry to go beyond one word, we're seeing something that's really new in the state legislative landscape where it used to be that a state would kind of come off the board once they passed a law on an issue.
- [28:37]
B
They were done.
- [28:38]
A
Move on. Next issue now we're seeing Connecticut, Colorado, obviously California, other States are going to to continue to go back as far as we can tell and amend laws that they just enacted so absolutely. Unfortunately this is a super evolving area.
- [28:51]
B
So what are the odds of the federal privacy law in 2025 or 2026 while we still have a Republican Congress.
- [28:58]
A
Close to non existent. I think there's no way to get consensus. There's no way to get 60 votes unless they get rid of the filibuster. You don't see a bill Dems dig in. There's no agreement on big issues.
- [29:08]
B
This is one where I'm going to disagree with you and I feel like I'm disagreeing with my favorite professor who knows a lot more than me. But I actually think you're going to see a notice in choice federal privacy bill and that this is wildly self serving for me as board chair of the nai. But like that it'll have a safe harbor for self Reg I actually think there is a better than 50% chance of that happening.
- [29:35]
A
Alan, I think you're high. I think you've been walking around the streets of Marin too long and you've gotten a contact high. I don't know what's going on. That's not going to happen. But let's have a steak dinner. Bet on it and you can buy me steak in two years.
- [29:48]
B
Fantastic. I can't wait. Is the federal government going to ban TikTok?
- [29:52]
A
Yes, eventually.
- [29:54]
B
How long?
- [29:56]
A
Ballpark, two years, three years I'd say look to previous policy on this national security. There's support for it. It's hard to do but yeah, I think eventually.
- [30:07]
B
But you do think they're going to figure out a loophole around the current divestiture law?
- [30:12]
A
I don't know how long it's going to be litigated but I don't think the First Amendment arguments are right. I think they're wrong. I mean I think they're relatively strong, they're very well funded but I just think they're wrong and I think national security trumps speech. I think you can have speech without having a national security threat. And this isn't me speaking. I mean the national security community is pretty unanimous in this. So I think ultimately they usually went out.
- [30:38]
B
Okay, penultimate question. What happens to the DOJ and FTC competition Cases against the tech giants in 2025 pursue very similar form.
- [30:48]
A
I mean I think you probably saw Gail Slater just got appointed to the DOJ post. She's incredibly smart and thoughtful and I think based on my understanding of this administration and those cases and the People coming in is that they're serious, there are serious cases, they're concerned. So I don't think there's a lot of change there. I don't think we see much change.
- [31:11]
B
I will say, when they appointed Gail Slater to effectively take Jonathan Kantor's role at the doj, that's probably the right way to look at it.
- [31:20]
A
Yeah. Okay.
- [31:21]
B
So once I saw that name, I said, oh, you know what, there's a chance that they're going to continue to pursue these things seriously. I still hold out some belief that there'll be a little bit more deal making in that area, just given who the incoming president is going to be. But I do think that there's something to be said for the language around we need to protect little tech.
- [31:47]
A
Yeah, no, I think that's a really good point. And it's fair to point out that it's impossible to predict administrations more broadly and in the White House. And I think Trump is quite unpredictable. And so, yeah, there's always some X factors in there. But I think Gail is a, a perfect example of someone who's just really thoughtful and knowledgeable and balanced and I think has a, you know, we know what we can expect and, you know, a lot of focus on this area is definitely in the cards.
- [32:15]
B
Okay, my last question for you. We have a little bit of a tradition here where our guests share a sort of semi secret hobby or something that maybe the audience doesn't know much about. And so what's yours?
- [32:27]
A
I'm a pretty conventional guy, as you know, but I don't know, I guess I'd say it's like I'm a bike commuter. And when I say that I'm not like someone who rides like a couple miles on like a city bike, but one of those guys who rides like 15 miles plus, you know, in spandex, like. So if you see a guy riding down the middle of the street in Washington, you know, that could be me going in and out of work, looking like a lunatic. But something that I really love to do, it's a kind of a fun hobby.
- [32:55]
B
Ever have a near miss with a, with a car?
- [32:57]
A
Oh, yeah, yeah, I almost have. Several times. I've almost. I've had my life flash before my eyes and think that, like, I recognize that there's a good chance on any given day that you don't get to the end point. I mean. Yeah, I guess that's what makes it really scary at times.
- [33:12]
B
Well, it's an adrenaline rush. I guess it is.
- [33:15]
A
Yeah. I guess it is.
- [33:16]
B
Well, David, thank you so much. This has been a great discussion. I really appreciate you coming on. This was a lot. Yeah.
- [33:21]
A
Appreciate having me. It's always fun to talk. Alan.
- [33:23]
B
Well, that was a great conversation. We've got a bunch of other fantastic guests coming up on the Monopoly Report podcast over the next few weeks. In the upcoming weeks, we'll have Jules Polinetzky and Doug Miller from the Future of Privacy forum. We're going to be talking about data clean rooms. And next week, we'll have Elisa Hutnick from the law Firm Kelly Dry Lisa's. Fantastic. So please subscribe to the show at TheMonopolyReportPod.com or on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. David, thank you so much for being here.
- [33:54]
A
Thanks, Alan.