In 2020, Google reported it would remove the tracking technology more commonly known as “cookies” from its widely used Chrome browser, raising concern among brand marketers and other digital advertisers. Companies and online advertisers have come to depend on the web browser’s tracking capabilities to deliver targeted advertising while also measuring the success of those efforts. According to Statista, a global data and business intelligence platform, the Chrome browser accounted for 65.7% of the global market share for internet browsers by February 2024. The closest competitor to Chrome was Safari, with a significantly lower 18.1%. All other browsers claimed less than 5% of the global market share. Google’s planned depreciation of third-party cookies was certainly cause for alarm among those leveraging digital ads.
Following Google’s decision, privacy advocates, already uneasy over how consumer data was collected, maintained, and used, were in support of Google’s decision, while those engaged in online advertising lamented, believing the search engine giant planned a “cookie-less” future to force advertisers to rely on Google’s own digital advertising solutions. Third-party cookies, Google asserted, were to be phased out by 2022. Regulators—like the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)—argued that Google’s plans would adversely affect digital advertising competition and opened an investigation into the decision, causing delays in the promised action.
Fast forward four years to Google’s abrupt about-face. In July 2024, the company announced it would not remove the tracking technology from its Chrome browser. Instead, browser users will receive a prompt asking if they would prefer to turn the cookies on or off.
Anthony Chavez, VP of Google’s Privacy Sandbox, wrote in a July 22 blog post that the feedback Google received from regulators, digital advertisers, web developers, civil groups, and others “…has helped us craft solutions that aim to support a competitive and thriving marketplace that works for publishers and advertisers, and encourage the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies.” Chavez’s statement also noted that Google recognizes that “…this transition requires significant work by many participants and will have an impact on publishers, advertisers, and everyone involved in online advertising.”
To better understand how Google’s reversal will be received by brand marketers and loyalty professionals, Loyalty360 spoke with its supplier-member experts. In the following article, these experts shared their thoughts on the real impact of Google’s decision, whether regulatory concerns will be eased, and what smart brands should do before Google introduces its new “solutions.”
Article contributors:
- Rohan Mahadar, Vice President of Products, Capillary Technologies
- Michael Snyder, Senior Solutions Consultant CX & Loyalty, Comarch
- Wanda Kauffman, Director, Technology Solutions, and Privacy Lead, The Lacek Group
- Maeghen Krueger, Director, Strategic Services, The Lacek Group
- Tim Glomb, VP Digital, Content, and AI, Wunderkind
Initial Reactions
Comarch’s Snyder sees the decision by Google as just delaying the inevitable and not making a marked impact as regulators are still working to increase consumer privacy protections. However, he admits this reversal from Google will benefit a large portion of advertisers and marketers who are currently relying on third-party data to sell ads while also continuing to benefit Google itself as many of its competitors have phased out cookies—i.e., Apple with the Safari browser and Mozilla with Firefox.
“From a user perspective, the delay means continued exposure to personalized ads based on browsing behavior,” says Snyder. “Some users may appreciate the relevance of these ads, while others might prefer enhanced privacy and less tracking.”
Overall, Snyder asserts the delay reflects the complex balance between advancing user privacy, supporting the advertising ecosystem, and managing the technological challenges involved in such a significant transition.
According to Lacek’s Krueger, Google is trying to find a middle ground. She notes that as businesses were diligently preparing for cookie deprecation, the significant negative impact the change would have on digital advertising became clear.
“In addition, many people are accustomed to having their data collected and then being served up brand advertisements tailored to them—which arguably makes for a more enjoyable online experience and helps people find products and services,” says Krueger.
Capillary’s Mahadar believes Google’s decision is a temporary measure (setback) to its long-term goal of a cookie-less world. “If anything, this gives more time to implement a much more stringent cookie-less ecosystem and regulations.”
“[The reversal] is not a surprise given the to-date attempts to build out Privacy Sandbox have favored Google more than their competitors, as U.K./E.U. regulators have called out,” adds Wunderkind’s Glomb. “Putting the choice on consumers to allow or deny websites to track their behavior is a safe way to strive for a privacy-compliant web
experience.”
Industry Implications
Google’s decision will affect brands that have been preparing for a cookie-less future as well as the vendors that work with them. Glomb contends that the real impact will be determined by the mechanism Google uses in the Chrome browser that asks consumers to allow or deny cookie tracking per website they visit.
“Apple raised the bar pretty high by creating a clear, concise opt-in tool via Apple Tracking Transparency (ATT),” shares Glomb.
This prompt requires users—who have not turned off all ad tracking in their general device settings—to choose if they want to allow an app to track their activity. The app cannot be used until the choice is indicated.
“U.S. regulators may look to this consumer-friendly example of choice as the new normal,” continues Glomb. “If Google buries the opt-in choice as a small banner pop-up on each website with ‘opt-in’ as the default button, then users may take a banner-ad-blindness approach and simply accept. But if Google makes it clear and large within the browser session—like ATT—it may see a mass opt-out of cookie tracking.”
Glomb notes that reports have suggested nearly 90% of ATT pop-ups result in an Ask App Not To Track (an opt-out). “If Google sees similar rates for opt-out, the third-party cookie will dimmish in value, and it could happen quickly.”
According to Mahadar, Google’s move gives suppliers and brands more time to prepare and transition into a cookie-less world—which would benefit them in controlling their data better and building better privacy mechanisms.
“It also benefits the brands that are growing by giving them time to build their first-party data, which can be useful in their
customer engagement journey as they prepare for the cookie-less future,” adds Mahadar.
Snyder also sees an opportunity for smart brands.
“While this delay in removing cookies will allow companies to continue ‘business as usual’ with their websites, the smart ones will still be implementing their own strategies to collect zero- and first-party data, which is shown to be much more accurate and valuable than the third-party data collected via cookies,” he explains.
Lacek’s Kauffman agrees. “This announcement provides short-term relief for businesses that rely on cookie-based technologies and may not have fully implemented alternative strategies. However, it should really be viewed as more of a temporary delay than a reason to sideline privacy-first strategies. Brands would be wise to prioritize first-party data collection and cookie-less solutions to future-proof their investments.”
Regulatory Perspective
Following Google’s July announcement, early discussions among brands included whether the decision to delay would actually alleviate regulatory concerns or increase scrutiny.
Snyder doesn’t believe that regulatory concerns will be eased. In fact, he is already seeing regulatory bodies share their displeasure with the delay (E.U. and U.K.). He also notes that some regulators may perceive the delay as prioritizing business interests over user privacy, which could reinforce concerns about Google’s dominant position in the digital advertising market.
“This is not the first time for the delay, so regulators may demand more transparency and accountability from Google regarding its plans and timelines,” says Snyder. “Increased scrutiny could focus on ensuring that the delay is justified and that Google is making tangible progress toward more privacy-centric solutions.”
There could also be increased public and political pressure on regulators to enforce stricter timelines and measures on Google, especially if there is a perception that user privacy is being compromised.
“I believe regulators will want to see a very clear and concise opt-out language and call to action much like ATT,” says Glomb. “That seems to be the new bar for opting in or out of privacy and tracking concerns.”
Glomb also believes only time will tell what the actual mechanism will look like inside a Chrome browser when it comes to consumer choice.
“The design may make or break the future of the third-party cookie,” he adds.
Consumer Data and Use
But how will the continuation of cookies affect
the collection and use of consumer data? What do companies and brand marketers need to know now?
“The continued use of third-party cookies means that current data collection methods can remain in place,” says Snyder. “Advertisers and marketers will continue to track user behavior across multiple websites, collecting detailed data on user preferences, interests, and browsing habits.”
He points out that companies preparing for a cookie-less future now have more time to develop and implement alternative data collection strategies, such as first-party data collection—as mentioned previously, contextual advertising, and other privacy-preserving technologies.
The ongoing availability of third-party cookies will allow for sustained use of highly targeted and
personalized advertising. Marketers can continue to deliver ads based on detailed user profiles and behavior patterns.
“Companies will need to ensure compliance with existing and emerging privacy regulations,” emphasizes Snyder. “The delay in removing cookies does not absolve companies from adhering to laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which require clear consent and transparent data practices.”
“Regardless of Google’s announcement to allow third-party cookies to persist, they will absolutely diminish value as some consumers will opt out,” reiterates Glomb. “It’s unknown what that percentage will be, but a percentage will absolutely opt out.”
For Glomb, brands and publishers must be first-party-data driven to combat the unknown future of the third-party cookie.
Google’s Decision—Right or Wrong?
Loyalty360 asked the experts if Google made the right decision in keeping third-party cookies. What do different constituencies believe? What are the ramifications?
Krueger believes it was the right decision. “It helps maintain industry stability, especially since
AI is really shaking things up. The use of cookies could be beneficial to AI enhancements as those continue to be incorporated into digital advertising. Also, the decision helps small businesses stay afloat by continuing to provide options for audience reach, revenue collection, and user insights.”
For Mahadar, the various stakeholders in the ecosystem feel differently about it.
“As a consumer, I feel Google should have introduced the cookie-less regulations at least in a limited manner to safeguard the trust of the consumers and Chrome users,” he explains. “This would have also prompted innovation and a sense of urgency among the businesses-suppliers as well as brands.”
Like Glomb, Mahadar also notes that Google could have given more control to the users to opt in or out of the cookie-less experience in the same way as Apple gives the control to users to be tracked or not.
“This would have given a glimpse of the cookie-less world and a lot more control, thereby building trust among users in a meaningful manner,” maintains Mahadar. “As a user, I feel Google’s decision is aimed more at safeguarding its own advertising and publishing business interests than being a custodian of user data and privacy.”
The decision to delay the removal of third-party cookies is complex, with both positive and negative aspects. Snyder argues that, on the one hand, it provides more time for the industry to adapt and for Google to develop robust alternatives, potentially leading to a smoother transition and less market disruption. On the other hand, it raises privacy concerns, could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny, and may impact consumer trust.
“Ultimately, whether the decision was ‘right’ depends on the perspective taken,” says Snyder. “From an industry and technological standpoint, the delay might be justified to ensure a well-prepared transition. However, from a privacy and consumer trust perspective, the delay could be seen as a setback in advancing user privacy protections.”
Snyder contends that Google’s ongoing actions, transparency, and commitment to developing effective privacy-preserving technologies will be crucial in determining the long-term success and acceptance of this decision.
“Google caused the loss of billions of dollars in both labor and financial resources across brands and the martech vendor landscape,” says Glomb. “For years, many tried to develop workarounds or develop on Privacy Sandbox. The fact that they wasted that time with warnings and false alarms should be frustrating to those who attempted to comply and work within Google’s framework. It will be interesting to see if any class action lawsuits are brought against them.”
Regardless, giving consumers the choice to opt in or out via Chrome browser at a website level is a safe and sensible way to offer privacy to its users. Glomb sees this as the most logical solution to providing privacy at an individual level. However, time will tell what the masses decide and if third-party cookies will have real value in the future. He believes it’s also worth noting that most consumers do not understand how third-party cookies provide a convenient web-browsing experience. Still, with privacy top of mind, allowing consumers to
choose whether to share their data in exchange for a “better Internet” is the right move.
“It will be interesting to see if consumers who choose to opt out of third-party cookies across the websites they visit eventually complain about irrelevant or less-than-relevant advertisements that are served up to them,” finishes Glomb. “They may not understand the impact on their web experience if they bar websites from using their personal data.”