Economic Questions:
What is the technical definition of “data tracking” and “secondary tracking?” Once these terms are defined, does the FTC have technical expertise to enforce such a regulatory regime?
What are the costs and benefits of the bill? As a first step, they need only be enumerated. A second step is to quantify and monetize them where possible.
Is removing targeted advertising a cost or a benefit of the Act? That is, how much do people value targeted ads relative to generic, non-targeted ads?
How much weight should we place on lost innovation? Do we care that competing Chinese companies like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and others may not face similar restrictions? If so, how do we weigh those concerns?
Summary:
Introduced by Sen. Hawley (R-MO). This bill is effectively a Do Not Call list for internet data; users have the option to opt-in (via one click) to block data tracking that isn’t necessary for a service to properly work (called secondary tracking). Companies would be penalized for collecting unnecessary data from people on that list. The FTC would be the enforcement authority, and fines would be $50 per user affected by a violation for every day the violation occurs. It is similar to a bill proposed by the CEO of DuckDuckGo, a search engine that does not track users and competes with Google in general search.
Support from the bill comes from many who, in the words of Hawley, see secondary data collection as “creepy surveillance tactics.” In addition, it aims to protect users from targeted advertising, which has been a hot topic as consumer advocacy groups fight for greater protections.
Opposition to the bill is mostly from big tech and ad companies. Data is used to create a personalized, high- quality experience online. It is also an essential part of advertising and the main tool for targeted ads.