An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine is suing Grubhub for deceptive business practices, saying its food delivery app covertly inflates prices for diners who order through it. The suit demands an end to a laundry list of allegedly illegal practices as well as financial restitution and civil penalties. The newly filed lawsuit (PDF) argues that Grubhub's promises of "free" online orders -- and "unlimited free delivery" for Grubhub Plus -- are misleading. While customers can make pickup orders for free, the company charges delivery and service fees for standard orders and service fees for Grubhub Plus orders, displaying the service fee until recently as part of a single line with sales taxes. "Grubhub misled District residents and took advantage of local restaurants to boost its own profits, even as District consumers and small businesses struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic," said Racine in a statement. "Grubhub charged hidden fees and used bait-and-switch advertising tactics -- which are illegal."

The complaint says Grubhub orders often cost more than ordering the same item at a restaurant and argues that the company fails to reasonably disclose this to consumers. "Because Grubhub already charges consumers several different types of fees for its services ... consumers expect that the menu prices listed on Grubhub are the same prices offered at the restaurant or on the restaurant's website," it says. Grubhub has also listed many restaurants without their permission to expand its service, routing orders through its services and taking a commission. The complaint says it listed "over a thousand" restaurants in DC that had no connection with the company, asserting that the unapproved listings often contained menu errors and resulted in orders that would "take longer to fill, would be filled incorrectly, would be delivered cold, or would eventually be cancelled altogether."

Grubhub -- which also operates Seamless and several other food delivery apps -- has made more elaborate attempts to insert itself into restaurant transactions as well. The lawsuit notes its launch of unsanctioned microsites that appear to be official restaurant sites, as well as custom phone numbers that let it charge fees when customers call restaurants, even when the calls didn't result in orders. The company also offered a "Supper for Support" promotion that required restaurants to foot the bill for a special discount; it offered restaurants $250 in compensation after a backlash. "During the past year, we've sought to engage in a constructive dialogue with the DC attorney general's office to help them understand our business and to see if there were any areas for improvement," said Katie Norris, director of corporate communications, in a statement. "We are disappointed they have moved forward with this lawsuit because our practices have always complied with DC law, and in any event, many of the practices at issue have been discontinued. We will aggressively defend our business in court and look forward to continuing to serve DC restaurants and diners."

According to The Verge, Grubhub "says the app no longer lists restaurants that haven't agreed to work with it, and it's retired its microsites and the Supper for Support program." It will also make it more clear to users that prices might be lower when ordering directly from the restaurant, "and it will specify in marketing that only pickup orders are free," adds The Verge. The company maintains that it "has not misrepresented its fees," however.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Last year, the Graph Foundation had to rethink how it develops and distributes its Open Native Graph Database (ONgDB) after it settled a trademark and copyright claim by database biz Neo4j. The Graph Foundation agreed [PDF] it would no longer claim specific versions of ONgDB, its Neo4j Enterprise Edition fork, are a "100 percent free and open source version" of Neo4J EE. And last month, two other companies challenged by Neo4j -- PureThink and iGov -- were also required by a court ruling to make similar concessions.

ONgDB is forked from Neo4j EE, which in May 2018 dropped the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) and adopted a new license that incorporates the AGPLv3 alongside additional limitations spelled out in the Commons Clause license. This new Neo4j EE license forbade non-paying users of the software from reselling the code or offering some support services, and thus is not open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative. The Graph Foundation, PureThink, and iGov offered ONgDB as a "free and open source" version of Neo4j in the hope of winning customers who preferred an open-source license. That made it more challenging for Neo4j to compete.

So in 2018 and 2019 Neo4j and its Swedish subsidiary pursued legal claims against the respective firms and their principals for trademark and copyright infringement, among other things. The Graph Foundation settled [PDF] in February 2021 as the company explained in a blog post. The organization discontinued support for ONgDB versions 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. And it released ONgDB 1.0 in their place as a fork of AGPLv3 licensed Neo4j EE version 3.4.0.rc02. Last May, the judge hearing the claims against PureThink, and iGov granted Neo4j's motion for partial summary judgment [PDF] and forbade the defendants from infringing on the company's Neo4j trademark and from advertising ONgDB "as a free and open source drop-in replacement of Neo4j Enterprise Edition" The defendants appealed, and in February the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the company's "statements regarding ONgDB as 'free and open source' versions of Neo4j EE are false." "Stop saying Open Source when it's not," said the Open Source Initiative in a blog post. "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision concluding what we've always known: that it's false advertising to claim that software is 'open source' when it's not licensed under an open source license."

Walgreens and other retailers replaced some fridge and freezer doors with iPad-like screens, reports CNN. "And some shoppers absolutely hate it." The screens, which were developed by the startup Cooler Screens, use a system of motion sensors and cameras to display what's inside the doors — as well as product information, prices, deals and, most appealing to brands, paid advertisements. The tech provides stores with an additional revenue stream and a way to modernize the shopping experience. But for customers who just want to peek into the freezer and grab their ice cream, Walgreens risks angering them by solving a problem that shoppers didn't know existed. The company wants to engage more people with advertising, but the reaction, so far, is annoyance and confusion.

"Why would Walgreens do this?" one befuddled shopper who encountered the screens posted on TikTok. "Who on God's green earth thought this was a good idea?"

"The digital cooler screens at Walgreens made me watch an ad before it allowed me to know which door held the frozen pizzas," said someone on Twitter....

Walgreens began testing the screens in 2018 and has since expanded the pilot to a couple thousand locations nationwide. Several other major retailers are launching their own tests with Cooler Screens, including Kroger, CVS, GetGo convenience stores and Chevron gas stations. "I hope that we will one day be able to expand across all parts of the store," said Cooler Screens co-founder and CEO Arsen Avakian in an interview with CNN Business. Currently the startup has about 10,000 screens in stores, which are viewed by approximately 90 million consumers monthly, according to the company....

Politifact last month debunked a viral Facebook video that claimed "Walgreens refrigerators are scanning shoppers' hands and foreheads for 'the mark of the beast.'"

Avakian insists the tech is "identity-blind" and protects consumers' privacy. The freezers have front-facing sensors used to anonymously track shoppers interacting with the platform, while internally facing cameras track product inventory...

The items on display don't always match up with what's inside because products are out of stock.....

"This is the future of retail and shopping," Avakian said.
CNN notes that major corporations are backing the company Cooler Screens, which "has raised more than $100 million from backers including Microsoft and Verizon." But long-time Slashdot reader davidwr points out it's been done before. "Some gas stations have had video ads at the pump for years now. I boycott those stations on principle."

And Slashdot reader quonset wonders if we're one step closer to Futurama's vision of a world where advertisers enter our dreams.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from GIzmodo: Ormeus is a cryptocurrency that was launched in 2017, the brainchild of John and Tina Barksdale -- two siblings and self-identified crypto marketers -- who are now facing federal securities charges in connection with their business. In a complaint unsealed Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the siblings with defrauding their investors out of $124 million. In an accompanying federal indictment unsealed the same day, the Justice Department announced multiple charges against John Barksdale -- wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Both agencies allege that the duo used misleading and outright fraudulent marketing techniques to lure in investors to a coin that wasn't nearly as valuable as they claimed.

"As alleged, Barksdale operated like a traveling salesman and peddled lies, overstatements, and misrepresentations regarding a cryptocurrency called Ormeus Coin, which resulted in duping thousands of investors throughout the world," said Ricky J. Patel, Homeland Security Investigations New York Special Agent in Charge, in a statement. According to officials, the Barksdales claimed that their business was supported by "one of the largest crypto mining operations in the world" and that the company was raking in monthly mining revenue between $5.4 and $8 million. The Barksdales also heralded their token as a "new digital money system backed by a fully-audited industrial crypto-mining operation." But, according to federal officials, most of those claims were BS.

Officials say the Ormeus mining operations shut down in 2019 after drawing too little money, that it never reached even a million dollars per month. According to the DOJ, John Barksdale claimed to have $250 million worth of Bitcoin stored at the mining operation that would secure the token's value. In reality, the coins belonged to someone else, the indictment states. The indictment against him claims that misrepresentations and fabrications about the coin's value were promoted via Ormeus Global, a multi-level marketing company that used false and manipulative advertising to encourage hapless investors to go all-in on the coin.

For years, the tiny startup Kytch worked to invent and sell a device designed to fix McDonald's notoriously broken ice cream machines, only to watch the fast food Goliath crush their business like the hopes of so many would-be McFlurry customers. Now Kytch is instead seeking to serve out cold revenge -- nearly a billion dollars worth of it. Wired: Late Tuesday night, Kytch filed a long-expected legal complaint against McDonald's, accusing the company of false advertising and tortious interference in its contracts with customers. Kytch's cofounders, Melissa Nelson and Jeremy O'Sullivan, are asking for no less than $900 million in damages.

Since 2019, Kytch has sold a phone-sized gadget designed to be installed inside McDonald's ice cream machines. Those Kytch devices would intercept the ice cream machines' internal communications and send them out to a web or smartphone interface to help owners remotely monitor and troubleshoot the machines' many foibles, which are so widely acknowledged that they've become a full-blown meme among McDonald's customers. The two-person startup's new claims against McDonald's focus on emails the fast food giant sent to every franchisee in November 2020, instructing them to pull Kytch devices out of their ice cream machines immediately.

Those emails warned franchisees that the Kytch devices not only violated the ice cream machines' warranties and intercepted their "confidential information" but also posed a safety threat and could lead to "serious human injury," a claim that Kytch describes as false and defamatory. Kytch also notes that McDonald's used those emails to promote a new ice cream machine, built by its longtime appliance manufacturing partner Taylor, that would offer similar features to Kytch. The Taylor devices, meanwhile, have yet to see public adoption beyond a few test installations.

The imperfect, scattershot search tool delivers just enough usefulness and serendipity to keep one hooked. From a report: Google Alerts can cast a wonderful net, but mesh size matters: large holes and it catches nothing, too small and it catches everything. Consider the earliest and one of the most persistent reasons for setting these alerts: tracking yourself. All is vanity, perhaps especially on the Internet, so it's no surprise that one of the things that we're most eager to know is what the world is saying about us. The engineer who developed the alert system for Google told CNN that when he first presented the idea, twenty years ago, his manager was skeptical, worrying that it would starve the search-engine of traffic: rather than consumers constantly searching for fresh mentions of whatever topic interested them, they would wait for the alert, then follow its links not to Google but to outside Web sites, leaching away potential advertising revenue. In response, the engineer, one of the first forty or so employees of the company, took his prototype to Google's co-founders, who approved it after watching him demonstrate only two search terms: "Google" and "Larry Page," the name of one of the co-founders.

Learning what other people thought about us used to take either a great deal of luck, like Tom Sawyer being mistaken for dead and then getting to eavesdrop on his own funeral, or a great deal of effort, like Harun al-Rashid, a caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, in the "Arabian Nights," disguising himself in order to venture out into the streets and talk with his subjects candidly. But the Internet has made it easy -- made it, in fact, almost unavoidable. The same Google Alert can make sure you know that your long-lost bunkmate from summer camp has mentioned you in an essay, that a friend of your deceased uncle has written a memoir of their time together in the Marines (including the care packages you sent them), and that the local newspaper has digitized its archives, thereby offering up to the Internet your high-school football averages and your arrest for vandalism.

A new claim that Microsoft and Google are gaming the online advertising market to the detriment of smaller rivals threatens to set up a new antitrust clash in Europe, according to previously unseen data. Politico: The two U.S. giants appear to be flooding smaller search engine partners with spam ads and keeping some of the most valuable ads for themselves, according to data reviewed by POLITICO, in a move that draws parallels with the infamous $2.7 billion Google Shopping case. While EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager's 2015 offensive against Google's abuses in the search market got the backing of the EU General Court in November, there are some who say that blind spots in the case have allowed for certain violations to continue -- illustrated by Swedish price-comparison site PriceRunner's decision earlier this month to sue Google for $2.4 billion in damages. And now, according to the same data, both Google and its closest rival in the search engine space, Microsoft, are siphoning off so-called spam ads to smaller search engines that use their search results, as well as limiting the quantity of higher-value ads that appear on these partner search engines.

Industry analysts and former Mozilla employees are concerned about Firefox's future, reports Ars Technica, warning that the ultimate fate of Firefox "has larger implications for the web as a whole." Since its release in 2008, [Google's] Chrome has become synonymous with the web: it's used by around 65 percent of everyone online and has a huge influence on how people experience the Internet. When Google launched its AMP publishing standard, websites jumped to implement it. Similar plans to replace third-party cookies in Chrome — a move that will impact millions of marketers and publishers — are shaped in Google's image.

"Chrome has won the desktop browser war," says one former Firefox staff member, who worked on browser development at Mozilla but does not want to be named, as they still work in the industry. Their hopes for a Firefox revival are not high. "It's not super reasonable for Firefox to expect to win back even any browser share at this point." Another former Mozilla employee, who also asked not to be named for fear of career repercussions, says: "They're just going to have to accept the reality that Firefox is not going to come back from the ashes...."

Mozilla's financial declarations from 2020 said that despite the layoffs it is in a healthy place, and it expects its financial results for 2021 to show revenue growth. However, Mozilla and Firefox acknowledge that for its long-term future it needs to diversify the ways it makes money. These efforts have ramped up since 2019. The company owns read-it-later service Pocket, which includes a paid premium subscription service. It has also launched two similar VPN-style products that people can subscribe to. And the company is pushing more into advertising as well, placing ads on new tabs that are opened in the Firefox browser.... Selena Deckelmann, senior vice president of Firefox, says Firefox is likely to continue looking for ways to keep personalizing people's online browsing. "I'm not sure that what's going to come out of that is going to be what people traditionally expect from a browser, but the intention will always be to put people first," she says. Just this week, Firefox announced a partnership with Disney — linked to a new Pixar film — that involves changing the color of the browser and ads to win subscriptions to Disney+. The deal speaks both to Firefox's personalization push and the strange roads its search for revenue streams can lead down.

Deckelmann adds that Firefox doesn't need to be as big as Chrome or Apple's Safari, the second largest browser, to succeed. "All we really want is to be a viable choice," Deckelmann says. "Because we think that this makes a better Internet for everybody to have these different options."
Interesting stats from the article:

• "Mozilla's own statistics show a drop of around 30 million monthly active users from the start of 2019 to the start of 2022."

• Mozilla's figures now also show around 215 million Firefox Desktop clients active in the past 28 days — a number which has stayed stable.

• Yet In 2008, a full 20% of the 1.5 billion people online were using Firefox to surf the web — including more than half the web surfers in Indonesia, Macedonia, and Slovenia.

• "Across all devices, the browser has slid to less than 4 percent of the market," writes Ars Technica. "On mobile it's a measly half a percent..."

• Next year, Firefox's "lucrative search deal with Google — responsible for the vast majority of its revenue" — is set to expire.

Slashdot reader McGruber shares a scathing column from New York magazine arguing that "There has never been a self-immolation quite like Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg's social-media company has lost more than half a trillion dollars in market value since its August peak — about half of that vaporized in a single day, the biggest drop ever — as it starts to weaken from the constant siege of competitors and dissenters without and within.

"The fallout is so bad that Meta, once the sixth-largest company in the world by market capitalization, has fallen out of the top ten, replaced by two computer-chip makers, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, and the Chinese e-commerce company Tencent..."

They're calling it "an ignominious fall from a rarefied group of world-dominating companies." Facebook's once unbeatable ad-tracking system — the engine that made it a more than $1 trillion company — has effectively been neutralized by the likes of Apple, which allows users to block the company's trackers. (Google is set to start phasing in similar protections to its users over the next two years.) Facebook's user base has started to shrink after revelations by whistleblowers and leaks that showed how harmful social media could be to teen users, who are flocking to less toxic competitors like TikTok anyway. And Zuckerberg — clearly bored with the company he founded 18 years ago — has shifted his vision into an immersive version of the internet, complete with headsets and digital avatars, that he calls the metaverse, an ambition that sets up Facebook's competition not with another Silicon Valley company but with reality itself....

Apple and Google have decided they're going to allow their users to disable code that tracks people across the internet, which happens to be good for their business model. According to The Wall Street Journal, the fallout has been so severe that advertisers are shifting their entire ad budgets to Google since Facebook is no longer profitable.
The article's final point is that in the middle of all this, Zuckerberg has committed the company to a "metaverse" future — even though Wall Street investors seem almost unanimously unconvinced.

"Clearly, Zuckerberg has plenty of money to burn on his ambitions, but what's less clear is if he'll be able to bring back the armies of people who once believed in his ability to conquer the world."

The Washington Post reports: Google announced it will begin the process of getting rid of long-standing ad trackers on its Android operating system, upending how advertising and data-collection work on phones and tablets used by more than 2.5 billion people around the world.

Right now, Google assigns special IDs to each Android device, allowing advertisers to build profiles of what people do on their phones and serve them highly targeted ads. Google will begin testing alternatives to those IDs this year and eventually remove them completely, the company said in a Wednesday blog post. Google said the changes will improve privacy for Android users, limiting the massive amounts of data that app developers collect from people using the platform.

But the move also could give Google even more power over digital advertising, and is likely to deepen concerns regulators have already expressed about the company's competitive practices... It made $61 billion in advertising revenue in the fourth quarter of 2021 alone....

The announcement comes over a year after Apple began blocking trackers on its own operating system, which runs on its iPhones, giving customers more tools to limit the data they share with app developers.... Google contrasted its plan with Apple's, saying it would make the changes over the next two years, working closely with app developers and the advertising industry to craft new ways of targeting ads and measuring their effectiveness before making any drastic changes.

"We realize that other platforms have taken a different approach to ads privacy, bluntly restricting existing technologies used by developers and advertisers," said Anthony Chavez, vice president of product management for Android security and privacy, in the blog post. "We believe that without first providing a privacy-preserving alternative path such approaches can be ineffective and lead to worse outcomes for user privacy and developer businesses."
The Post also includes this quote from the chief security office of Mozilla (which began restricting ad tracking in Firefox several years ago). "Google's two year plan is too long. People deserve better privacy now."

Google said on Wednesday that it was working on privacy measures meant to limit the sharing of data on smartphones running its Android software. But the company promised those changes would not be as disruptive as a similar move by Apple last year. From a report: Apple's changes to its iOS software on iPhones asked users for permission before allowing advertisers to track them. Apple's permission controls -- and, ultimately, the decision by users to block tracking -- have had a profound impact on internet companies that built businesses on so-called targeted advertising. Google did not provide an exact timeline for its changes, but said it would support existing technologies for at least two more years.

This month, Meta, the company founded as Facebook, said Apple's privacy changes would cost it $10 billion this year in lost advertising revenue. The revelation weighed on Meta's stock price and led to concerns about other companies reliant on digital advertising. Anthony Chavez, a vice president at Google's Android division, said in an interview before the announcement that it was too early to gauge the potential impact from Google's changes, which are meant to limit the sharing of data across apps and with third parties. But he emphasized that the company's goal was to find a more private option for users while also allowing developers to continue to make advertising revenue.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The most insufferable part of every Super Bowl Sunday has historically, without fail, been the ads. This year was no exception, with an unrelenting barrage of ads trying to manifest the metaverse, convince viewers they're missing out on crypto, and lure new blood to online and physical casinos. Results were mixed. Coinbase, in one ad named WAGMI ("we're all going to make it"), crafted an advertisement that bounced a QR code around the screen, changing colors each time it hit the edge like an old-school DVD menu. Scanning the QR codewhich immediately forfeits your right to enter heaventakes the user to this page, where Coinbase offers $15 in Bitcoin for signing up as well as a chance to enter a contest to win one of three prizes for $1 million worth of Bitcoin. The linked webpage went down almost immediately thanks to the increased traffic from the ad, and ridicule at the idea of paying millions of dollars to send millions of viewers to a down site poured in from around the web.

To Coinbase, though, the ad was a success. In a blog post congratulating itself on the advertisement and interviewing Coinbase Chief Marketing Officer Kate Rouch about why the ad was so good, the company revealed it saw "20M+ hits on our landing page in one minute" which "led to us temporarily throttling our systems." Chief executive Brian Armstrong took to Twitter to gloat about the ad: ranked #1 by AdWeek and peaking at #2 in the Apple App Store, just ahead of apps for the Pepsi Super Bowl Halftime Show and the NFL. As it turns out, putting up nothing but a QR code in the middle of a widely-watched sports event and offering free money as well as a chance to win $3 million is a good way to build interest in your app. When Motherboard reached out to Coinbase about the ad, the company directed Motherboard to Rouch's blog post and reiterated its main points.

While taking a victory lap for the apparent success of its ad, Coinbase took the time to explain why this is definitely not at all like the dotcom bubble, which many critics have said is an apt comparison for Sunday's ads. "There have been a lot of comparisons to the dot.com era and speculation that many of the crypto companies advertising in this year's Super Bowl will inevitably fail," said Rouch in Coinbase's blog post. "We don't think about it that way and judging from the early response we've seen, Super Bowl viewers don't either." Rouch insisted that the sheer number of crypto ads in the Super Bowl was "yet another signal that crypto is bursting into the mainstream, and at the center of the cultural zeitgeist." Further reading: This Year's Super Bowl Broadcast May Seem 'Crypto-Happy'. But the NFL Isn't

During today's telecast of the Super Bowl, 100 million Americans will see at least three commercials promoting cryptocurrency, reports the Washington Post, "and though Tom Brady may be gone from the game, he hovers over it, hawking crypto exchange FTX."

"Yet the hype belies a more complicated relationship. Unlike the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the country's most popular sports league, has essentially prohibited its teams from using crypto." It's a microcosm of the broader cultural battle between those touting the currency as the shiny future and others warning of its dangers.... [T]he headlines often come with a negative tint. New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman warned last month about crypto's parallels to the subprime mortgage crisis. This week, the FBI arrested a New York couple for allegedly conspiring to launder billions in crypto. That can scare the large corporate entities of professional sports, particularly the NFL, whose love of fresh revenue sources is matched only by its fear of public relations disasters.... In September, a memo revealed by the Athletic showed the league's restrictive attitude toward crypto... "Clubs are prohibited from selling, or otherwise allowing within club controlled media, advertisements for specific cryptocurrencies, initial coin offerings, other cryptocurrency sales or any other media category as it relates to blockchain, digital asset or as blockchain company, except as outlined in this policy," it said.

The NFL has made some forays into NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, the digitally watermarked tools that are crypto's less controversial cousin, signing up for a partnership with Ticketmaster for NFTs of Super Bowl tickets and an NFT video highlight program with Dapper Labs, one of the leaders in the space. And of course the Super Bowl is taking place at SoFi Stadium, named for the digitally minded financial firm. But sponsorships from crypto exchanges remain off-limits, and the idea of the NFL creating a cryptocurrency, which some enthusiasts have advocated, is the stuff of fantasy. Even the Super Bowl commercials going for as much as $7 million for 30 seconds — which the league authorizes — include only exchanges such as FTX and not currencies themselves....

The NFL has formed an internal working group to study the regulatory, brand and other consequences of partnering with crypto companies but has set no timetable for when its rules could be revised. Renie Anderson, the NFL's chief revenue officer, said the league is moving slowly by design. "We don't want to put everything and the kitchen sink into this," she said by phone from the site of Super Bowl events in Los Angeles. "We don't know where a lot of this is going, so what we're trying to do is testing and learning so we can understand." She cited regulatory and market forces that are still coming into focus. (The Treasury Department and other federal agencies have been ramping up their efforts to create a regulatory framework for crypto, but there remains a degree of murkiness around what the future limits might be.) The NFL, Anderson said, would rather act after there's clarity. "It's hard to unwind something like a naming rights deal," she said, "and I'd rather not have to undo opportunities two years later because there are rules against advertising or marketing certain things."

National Basketball Association executives, however, say they see a major opportunity right now.
The article also points out that one football star even says he converted his $750,000 salary to Bitcoin. Though one sports analyst calculates that if the purchase was made on November 12th, after federal and state taxes it's now worth about $35,000.

Mozilla engineer Martin Thomson reveals they've been collaborating with Meta (formerly Facebook) on new technology that can measure "conversions" from advertising while still preserving privacy.

The proposed new technology is called Interoperable Private Attribution, or IPA. IPA has two key privacy-preserving features. First, it uses Multi-Party Computation (MPC) to avoid allowing any single entity — websites, browser makers, or advertisers — to learn about user behavior. Mozilla has some experience with MPC systems as we've deployed Prio for privacy-preserving telemetry. Second, it is an aggregated system, which means that it produces results that cannot be linked to individual users. Together these features mean that IPA cannot be used to track or profile users.

IPA is designed to provide a lot of flexibility for advertising businesses in terms of how they use the system. Cross-device and cross-browser attribution options in IPA enable new and more robust attribution capabilities, while maintaining privacy. The IPA proposal aims to ensure that all sites benefit from these features with the match key concept, which allows smaller players to access the greater reach of entities to cross-device attribution.
"Advertising provides critical support for the Web," the blog post argues — and they've now proposed IPA to the World Wide Web Consortium's dedicated Private Advertising Technology Community Group, while calling their idea "still a work in progress."

In the early 2000s, the U.S. Army released America's Army, a video game meant as a recruitment tool. "The free-to-play tactical shooter was wildly successful, reaching 20 million players," reports Fast Company. "But come May 5, the servers will be shut down -- and America's Army will surrender to the forces of time." From the report: To date, no industry has embraced games as warmly as the military, though. America's Army, for example, started with an initial budget of $7 million of your tax dollars at play -- and quickly grew from there. Recognizing that players know a quality title when they see one (and ignore and ridicule poor-quality efforts), it assembled a team of proven developers and bought a license for the Unreal Engine, which was (and remains) one of the premier game engines on the market. America's Army was only supposed to be a seven-year project, but its success encouraged the Defense Department to stay with the game, with the Pentagon spending more than $3 million a year to evolve and promote it -- a drop in the bucket compared to the overall $8 billion recruiting budget.

How well did it work? A 2008 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that "30% of all Americans ages 16 to 24 had a more positive impression of the Army because of the game and, even more amazingly, the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined." The end of America's Army is hardly the end of the military's use of games as recruiting tools. The Army has its own Twitch channel (with more than 23,000 followers) and has an e-sports team that competes at tournaments -- with recruiters in tow.

It's not just the office pool anymore. More than half of U.S. states now allow legalized sports betting, and in many cases it's as easy as opening an app on your smartphone and making a wager. From a report: A whopping 17.6 million people are expected to place a bet on Sunday's Super Bowl online or in person at a sportsbook, according to the American Gaming Association. It's not all profits for the operators, though. Sportsbooks are putting up their own money in the form of a massive advertising campaign targeting the millions of sports fans who will be glued to their TVs for the matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and the Cincinnati Bengals. "TV sportsbook advertising has grown exponentially this year and in the last couple of years overall," Adam Candee, managing editor of the trade publication Legal Sports Report, told NPR.

Candee said the sudden growth of legalized gambling in states across the country has sportsbook operators jockeying for a piece of the huge new customer base -- and the Super Bowl is their latest opportunity to sell themselves to potential bettors. "It is happening in the here and now, moment to moment, as they compete for customers. That is because this is essentially a new industry that is rising up from the ground," he said. Sports gambling could become a $37 billion industry by 2025, according to the investment management company ARK.

Google's plan to phase out third-party cookies and replace them with a bundle of new standards referred to as the "Privacy Sandbox" just overcame a key regulatory hurdle. From a report: The UK's competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has formally accepted Google's commitments about how it'll develop the new standards so they don't harm competition or unfairly benefit the search giant's own advertising business, the regulator announced today. Google's plans are still in flux, and it's not yet clear exactly what technologies Privacy Sandbox will use to replace third-party cookies. Just last month, Google abandoned one planned approach, FLoC, in favor of a new system called Topics API. Today's approval is for Google's approach, rather than any one specific technology. The regulator notes that in the next phase it will "supervise Google to ensure the Privacy Sandbox is developed in a way that benefits consumers."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Use of Google Analytics has now been found to breach European Union privacy laws in France -- after a similar decision was reached in Austria last month. The French data protection watchdog, the CNIL, said today that an unnamed local website's use of Google Analytics is non-compliant with the bloc's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) -- breaching Article 44 which covers personal data transfers outside the bloc to so-called third countries which are not considered to have essentially equivalent privacy protections. The U.S. fails this critical equivalence test on account of having sweeping surveillance laws which do not provide non-U.S. citizens with any way to know whether their data is being acquired, how it's being used or to seek redress for any misuse.

France's CNIL has been investigating one of 101 complaints filed by European privacy advocacy group, noyb, back in August 2020 -- after the bloc's top court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield agreement on data transfers. Since then (indeed, long before) the legality of transatlantic transfers of personal data have been clouded in uncertainty. While it has taken EU regulators some time to act on illegal data transfers -- despite an immediate warning from the European Data Protection Board of no grace period in the wake of the July 2020 CJEU ruling (aka 'Schrems II) -- decisions are now finally starting to flow. Including another by the European Data Protection Supervisor last month, also involving Google Analytics. In France, the CNIL has ordered the website which was the target of one of noyb's complaints to comply with the GDPR -- and "if necessary, to stop using this service under the current conditions" -- giving it a deadline of one month to comply.

"[A]lthough Google has adopted additional measures to regulate data transfers in the context of the Google Analytics functionality, these are not sufficient to exclude the accessibility of this data for U.S. intelligence services," the CNIL writes in a press release announcing the decision. "There is therefore a risk for French website users who use this service and whose data is exported." The CNIL does leave open the door to continued use of Google Analytics -- but only with substantial changes that would ensure only "anonymous statistical data" gets transferred. The French regulator is also very emphatic that under "current conditions" use of Google Analytics is non-compliant -- and may therefore need to cease in order for the site in question to comply with the GDPR. The CNIL also suggests use of an alternative analytics tool which does not involve a transfer outside the EU to end the breach. Additionally, it says it's launched an evaluation program to determine which website audience measurement and analysis services may be exempt from the need to obtain user consent (i.e. because they only produce anonymous statistical data which can be exported legally under GDPR). Which suggests the CNIL could issue guidance in future that recommends GDPR compliant alternatives to Google Analytics.

Twitter reported weaker-than-expected quarterly advertising revenue and user growth on Thursday and forecast revenue short of Wall Street targets, indicating that its turnaround plan has yet to bear fruit. Reuters reports: Still, the social networking site said it made "meaningful progress" toward its goal of reaching 315 million users and $7.5 billion in annual revenue by the end of 2023, and said user growth should accelerate in the United States and internationally this year. Shares of the San Francisco-based company rose more than 8% after the results, but pared those gains in morning trading.

Monetizable daily active users, or users who see ads, grew 13% to 217 million in the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, missing consensus estimates of 218.5 million, according to IBES data from Refinitiv. That was up from 211 million users in the previous quarter. [...] Advertising revenue for the fourth quarter grew 22% year over year to $1.41 billion, missing analysts' estimates of $1.43 billion. Twitter gained 6 million users during the quarter, but will need to add over 12 million each quarter over the next two years to hit its target of 315 million people by the end of 2023, said Jasmine Enberg, principal analyst at Insider Intelligence, calling it "an incredibly lofty goal."

Players generate a wealth of revealing psychological data -- and some companies are soaking it up. From a report: While there are no numbers on how many video game companies are surveilling their players in-game (although, as a recent article suggests, large publishers and developers like Epic, EA, and Activision explicitly state they capture user data in their license agreements), a new industry of firms selling middleware "data analytics" tools, often used by game developers, has sprung up. These data analytics tools promise to make users more amenable to continued consumption through the use of data analysis at scale.

Such analytics, once available only to the largest video game studios -- which could hire data scientists to capture, clean, and analyze the data, and software engineers to develop in-house analytics tools -- are now commonplace across the entire industry, pitched as "accessible" tools that provide a competitive edge in a crowded marketplace by companies like Unity, GameAnalytics, or Amazon Web Services. (Although, as a recent study shows, the extent to which these tools are truly "accessible" is questionable, requiring technical expertise and time to implement.) As demand for data-driven insight has grown, so have the range of different services -- dozens of tools in the past several years alone, providing game developers with different forms of insight. One tool -- essentially Uber for playtesting -- allows companies to outsource quality assurance testing, and provides data-driven insight into the results. Another supposedly uses AI to understand player value and maximize retention (and spending, with a focus on high-spenders).

Developers might use data from these middleware companies to further refine their game (players might be getting overly frustrated and dying at a particular point, indicating the game might be too difficult) or their monetization strategies (prompting in-app purchases -- such as extra lives -- at such a point of difficulty). But our data is not just valuable to video game companies in fine-tuning design. Increasingly, video game companies exploit this data to capitalize user attention through targeted advertisements. As a 2019 eMarketer report suggests, the value of video games as a medium for advertising is not just in access to large-scale audience data (such as the Unity ad network's claim to billions of users), but through ad formats such as playable and rewarded advertisements -- that is, access to audiences more likely to pay attention to an ad.