The Monopoly Report

Episode 62: The Future of Self-Regulation in Digital Ad Privacy
Host: Alan Chapell
Guest: David LeDuc (VP, Public Policy, Network Advertising Initiative)
Release Date: January 21, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode features a wide-ranging conversation between Alan Chapell and David LeDuc about the evolving state of self-regulation in digital ad privacy, the effectiveness of current privacy laws, industry-state relations, and the impact of emerging regulatory developments such as California’s DROP (Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform). The discussion combines practical industry insights, reflections on legislative trends, and predictions for what’s next as the digital advertising space faces increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Evolving Role of the NAI

(05:00–08:45)

• NAI (Network Advertising Initiative) is marking 25 years; initially known for its self-regulatory code, but has shifted focus due to the proliferation of state and federal privacy laws.
• David: “We developed a set of principles... now we’re heavily regulated... our role is about helping companies comply with myriad state and federal laws." (05:00)
• The NAI's new mission is to help companies decode complex and sometimes contradictory privacy obligations, serving as a bridge between ad tech firms and regulators.

2. Industry Advocacy & Perceptions of Lobbyists

(08:45–15:55)

• There’s a persistent critique from privacy advocates and lawmakers casting industry advocates as obstructive lobbyists.
• David: “I think what is underappreciated is the valuable role of interest groups and the role that they play in terms of the kind of stuff that I do. ...this is more about issue-oriented, deep-in-the-weeds policy input, not political influence." (09:41)
• Major, well-funded tech companies do wield disproportionate policy influence, often resulting in laws that target secondary actors rather than “big tech” itself.
• Alan points out that even terms like “representing consumers” are fraught: “Anybody that says they represent consumers, I say, well, which one?” (13:57)

3. Addressing Child & Teen Privacy

(12:27–16:09)

• New regulatory focus is increasingly on kids’ and teens’ data.
• Real change in law would require reliable age verification, but such steps face constitutional hurdles.
• Alan expresses curiosity about global approaches: “I’m curious... how age verification works in places like Australia...” (13:09)

4. Stakeholder Engagement: Regulators vs. Legislators

(16:09–21:01)

• David spends more time with regulators than legislators, because the former are more knowledgeable and pragmatic about technical complexities.
• Legislators often lack the bandwidth for technical deep-dives.
• David: “Regulators are smart...a great audience...legislators just don’t know as much. That’s not a criticism…it’s complex stuff.” (16:27)

5. Explaining Ad Tech to Policymakers

(18:44–22:02)

• Ad tech, especially third-party ad tech, remains a misunderstood industry.
• Explaining the value of third-party data to small publishers and advertisers is key for informed policy.
• Concerns raised over ad tech being lumped with “data brokers,” despite differences in identifiability and data use.

6. Data Brokers and Gray Areas

(22:02–23:52)

• Discusses Ashkan Soltani’s framework for understanding types of data broker companies (people search, fraud/fraud-prevention, ad tech).
• There is a nuanced but often ignored difference between ad tech and data brokers—which the law doesn’t always properly recognize.

7. Defining a "Perfect" Privacy Law

(23:52–31:58)

• David’s view: A strong law requires three pillars: transparency/choice, rigorous data governance, and mechanisms to prevent abusive practices.
• Skepticism about the practicality of “data minimization” as a standard, and debate around “unfairness” or “unreasonableness” approaches.
• David: “The goal is to get rid of these bad actors ... There’s got to be some version of a data minimization or an unfairness or an unreasonableness standard that’s applied effectively..." (29:21)

8. California's DROP Program: Impact and Outlook

(31:58–36:33)

• California’s DROP platform went live Jan 1, 2026; a major step, widely watched for its efficacy and implications.
• David: “It’s the first time this has ever been done... they’re approaching this very thoroughly and... thinking a lot about businesses and consumers.” (32:43)
• Other states are observing California’s initiative but unlikely to replicate DROP independently due to complexity and resources required.
• The system’s user authentication steps are a significant improvement over previous “authorized agent” models.

9. Global Privacy Control (GPC) and Technical Mandates

(37:40–40:55)

• California will require browsers to support the GPC signal by January 2027—a “hard requirement” that forces major browser makers (Google, Apple, Microsoft) to act.
• Potentially transformative for broad consumer choice, but success will depend on implementation and fairness.

10. State AI & Privacy Regulation — Avoiding Overlaps

(41:10–45:17)

• States act as legislative “laboratories” in AI, sometimes using privacy or consumer protection as proxies for AI regulation.
• David advocates for incrementalism: Rather than bundling disparate issues under “AI,” handle civil rights, copyright, and data protection discretely.

11. 2026 Predictions for Ad Privacy Regulation

(45:17–50:51)

• Prediction 1: California DROP and data broker issues will reshape industry compliance.
• Prediction 2: Policymakers at all levels are redoubling on children’s and teens’ data protection, moving past the classic COPPA threshold.
• Prediction 3: Increased, more sophisticated enforcement at state level; more AGs staffing up, better collaboration, potential for more impactful actions.
• Alan highlights complexities and risks of states engaging private law firms in enforcement, noting this could create the same sort of perverse incentives as a private right of action.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“I think what is underappreciated is the valuable role of interest groups and the role that they play … really more of a kind of issue oriented, specific, deep in the weeds, policy input as opposed to kind of political influence.” — David LeDuc, (09:41)

“Anybody that says they represent consumers, I say, well, which one? … There's a percentage of people really care about this stuff. There's a percentage of people who will, you know, sell their mother's Social Security number for, you know, 25 cents off a Big Mac. And then there's a whole big middle of varying interests.” — Alan Chapell, (13:57)

“Being able to explain the benefits and the role that third party companies have played for so long in helping so many businesses monetize customers, get new customers—it’s just so fundamentally misunderstood… I wish there were 10 of me out there.” — David LeDuc, (20:33)

“California’s DROP program—it’s the first time this has ever been done... they’re approaching this very thoroughly… and being very responsive.” — David LeDuc, (32:43)

“If we can't make choice work better as effectively as it can, that's why we're in this boat in my opinion. It's just that it's been hard as technology has evolved so quickly in our industry and choice and transparency hasn't always kept up…” — David LeDuc, (36:33)

“I do think it's possible [to bifurcate privacy, AI, and consumer protection], and I wish it would happen more. …Rolling them all together, putting a huge AI label on them and acting like we need to do them all at once is bananas.” — David LeDuc, (43:05)

Timestamps for Significant Segments

• 05:00 – NAI's 25-year transition: From self-regulation to supporting compliance with state and federal laws.
• 09:41 – David on value vs. public perception of industry “lobbyists.”
• 13:09 – Alan discusses global challenges with age verification.
• 16:27 – Regulators vs. legislators: Who really understands ad tech?
• 18:44 – Why is third-party ad tech so misunderstood?
• 22:02 – Ashkan Soltani’s framework for categorizing data brokers.
• 24:10 – “Perfect privacy” law: Transparency, choice, governance, and stopping bad actors.
• 32:38 – Impact of California’s DROP platform.
• 37:40 – California GPC requirement and browser compliance.
• 41:10 – States' approach to regulating AI via existing law.
• 45:30 – Predictions: DROP/data brokers, child/teen privacy, enforcement trends.
• 48:25 – Alan on the coming complexity for ad tech with changing definitions of “child” in regulations.

Tone & Style

The conversation is collegial, candid, and occasionally humorous, but remains deeply technical and policy-focused. Both Alan and David exhibit practical skepticism about policy fads and express appreciation for earnest, detail-oriented regulatory work, while still advocating for the interests of the ad tech ecosystem.

Further Engagement

• David LeDuc: "Come to the NAI website, the NAI.org... we’re very open minded and collaborative and we're willing and wanting to work with stakeholders from across the spectrum, you know, civil society, industry, our industry, other industries. ...happy to talk to anyone interested in and engaging more with the ad tech industry." (51:14)
• Alan Chapell: “You were just such a fantastic ambassador for the larger ad space... I would really encourage private companies to reach out to you and see if you’d be willing to speak…” (51:53)

For more analysis and future episodes, visit the Monopoly Report newsletter and follow upcoming guest interviews.