Advertising on the Internet has already had to face not a few analyzes in terms of privacy and not a few problems in its relations with data protection regulators. Regulatory changes, especially the European data protection law, the GDPR, have forced the industry to change many things and readjust many of its actions. The big question, however, is whether the adjustments have been sufficient or whether the industry, on the Singapore Mobile Database contrary, has not been able to fully refine what it is doing to comply with the requirements imposed by the administrations. According to the Belgian data protection body, they have not. The agency has just concluded that Google and the other programmatic advertising players are not complying with what the RGPD requires and that, therefore, they are not protecting the privacy of their users.
This conclusion has been presented in an internal report of the organization (it does not, therefore, consider a resolution and does not suppose, for now, a blow to the industry) to which The Wall Street Journal has been able to access . However, the conclusions of this report could become a serious problem for the programmatic advertising industry, because what the Belgian body has studied are the standards used by the Interactive Advertising Bureau in Europe. It has also done so, taking into account its presence throughout the European Union: given that the body’s headquarters are in Belgium, the Belgian privacy regulator considers it to be the one with jurisdiction. 
The data is preliminary, but its findings are concerning for the programmatic online advertising industry. According to the Belgian regulator’s conclusions, platforms fail to comply with the rule in those milliseconds in which they determine which ads will serve each page. During those milliseconds, ad platforms cross a lot of information. They use everything Brother Cell Phone List
they have been able to find out about the Internet user. That use of information is what would not be following the basis of European law. The basic problem is, for the Belgian body, in how information collected is used in circumstances in which the consumer did not give clear consent to be used in advertising. It is the type of data that European law allows companies to collect for “legitimate interests”. Then companies also use them to segment advertising, but according to the conclusions of the agency, consumers did not give them permission to do so and the law does not cover it.
If the preliminary data becomes definitive conclusions, the players of programmatic advertising would have, remember in the Journal , to change how they operate in order to comply with European law or create a special service for Europe. Its segmentation capabilities would change with the process. Of course, the IAB has a say in this funeral as well. The organism has indicated to the Journal , in declarations of its maximum European person in charge, Townsend Feehan, that the Belgian investigation has started from “great misunderstandings” on the capacity and functionality of the advertising platforms.
In an update on their blog, in addition to insisting that the Belgian report has no legal implications and does not imply that they are found to have broken the law, they have also made it clear that they disagree (“we respectfully disagree” with ” apparent of the APD (the Belgian data protection body) from the law. “The IAB has also warned that the body’s findings could have very negative effects on the development of open source standards in the advertising industry. Now, the Belgian conclusions will be analyzed by the agency’s litigation chamber. From there a final decision will come out, from which it is not yet known what date it will have (the Journal points out that it could be until next year). That conclusion will go to consultation with European privacy regulators, before becoming final.
