Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next

Menu

Category results for "Policy"

Policy

Policy

DCN submits comments on Artificial Intelligence

Download pdf

In response to the US Copyright Office request for comments, DCN submitted these comments regarding the legal and public policy concerns associated with artificial intelligence (AI), specifically Generative AI (GAI).

In these comments, we noted the strong protections for copyright holders and the importance of such protections for society at large. We also argued that GAI systems cannot claim a blanket “fair use” exemption for their use of copyrighted content. In light of the fact that over 10 lawsuits had been filed at the time these comments were filed, we ask the Copyright Office to “make clear that use of copyrighted works to train AI is not per se a fair use, and to explain how each of the fair use factors would apply to various AI training scenarios.” Our hope is that clarification from the Copyright Office will allow courts to move expeditiously to resolve copyright infringement claims, provide greater certainty for copyright holders and hasten the burgeoning marketplace for the licensing of copyrighted works by AI companies.

Featured Post | Policy

The case against Meta’s manipulative business model

This week, 41 state attorneys general along with the District of Columbia filed lawsuits against Meta for creating highly addictive features that harmed the mental and physical health of children. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of revelations, inquiries and legal challenges focused on the allegedly misleading and negligent behavior of Meta with regard to the impact on children and teenagers from their services.

It’s unusual—and significant—for so many states to unite in a bipartisan effort to hold a Big Tech company accountable for consumer harms. The coordination shows states are prioritizing the issue of children and online safety and combining legal resources to fight Meta, in a similar vein as prior actions against Big Pharma and Big Tobacco

Actively addictive by design

For years, public health organizations and consumer groups have warned about the dangers of social media use by teens and children. Key features of Instagram and Facebook have been specifically called out as harmful. Numerous studies have shown that this segment of the population is especially susceptible to harmful psychological effects from design features, such as the “like” button, which research has found to be one of the most toxic components of social media.  

Meta-designed notifications are particularly effective at repeatedly drawing young consumers back into their platforms while the Meta-designed algorithm keeps them engaged in the service for as long as possible so that the company can serve microtargeted ads. Such features include “infinite scroll,” persistent notifications and alerts, and autoplay of Stories and Reels. Other studies have shown that filters and other photo-altering features increase the incidence of body image issues among teenage girls.

The states’ lawsuit alleges that Meta deployed all of these tactics and more to “discourage young users’ attempts to self-regulate and disengage with Meta’s platforms.” The states included an enlightening direct quote from Sean Parker, founding CEO of Facebook:

“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them . . . was all about: “[h]ow do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” That means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content and that’s going to get you . . . more likes and comments. It’s a social-validation feedback loop . . . exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. The inventors, creators—me, Mark [Zuckerberg], Kevin Systrom on Instagram, all of these people—understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”

The lawsuit goes a step further to allege that Meta misled the public about the dangers of using their services. In 2021, former Meta employee Frances Haugen came forward as a whistleblower to not only confirm that these harms were happening to children, but also reveal that Meta executives knew all along about the dangers from their own internal studies but chose to put profits over the safety of their products. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Meta attempted to push the public narrative in the opposite direction by “routinely publish(ing) profoundly misleading reports purporting to show impressively low rates of negative and harmful experiences.”

Wider implications to watch

The proceedings inside the courtroom will be fascinating to watch. But I will also be closely watching two things outside of the courtroom:

Advertiser response

First off, it will be fascinating to see whether advertisers will change their buying habits in the wake of these allegations. Advertisers have known about the problems associated with social media for years. Despite some public hand-wringing from their trade association and boycott threats, marketers’ buying habits are largely the same today. At some point, one would expect marketers to shift their ad budgets away from financially supporting this toxic content platform to premium environments that better pair with the brand identity they want to cultivate.

Regulatory response

Secondly, I have to wonder if this may spur Congress to finally pass meaningful privacy or kids safety legislation. Every time there is a scandal and/or lawsuit involving one of the big tech platforms, there are renewed calls for legislation to regulate how they collect and use consumer data, to impose liability for the harms occurring on their services, and to create rules for how algorithms can be deployed among other things.

As a result of press coverage of these allegations, some of these bills might even get approved by the relevant committee(s). However, to date, none have been brought to the House or Senate floor for a vote. This Congress is particularly dysfunctional, but there is a decent chance that public officials heading into an election year might be shocked enough to coalesce around putting some guardrails on social media companies. Parents of children can be an influential voter base.

Stepping back a bit, all of these revelations about the dangers of social media and the abhorrent behavior of social media companies continue to fuel a global conversation about the role and impact of data, algorithms, surveillance advertising and unfiltered content. Lawsuits and legislation, which are getting smarter and more focused, will continue to draw headlines and potentially lead to liability for the worst actors. In the meantime, I am going to go give my kids an extra hug.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Five plain truths about AI 

“The rise of AI is an existential threat for media companies.”  

“The rise of AI is a disruptive opportunity for media companies greater than the Internet itself.”  

I overheard both statements in the last week. How can both be true at the same time? 

While I may not be able to square that circle, I do know that DCN has spent the last decade focused on the future and not shying away from difficult questions like these. And, for the past six months or more, we have been among those immersed in the impending upheaval and unprecedented opportunity heralded by everyone from AI doomsayers to evangelists. 

While the questions about the future of AI in the media are far from answered, there are a few plainly obvious truths emerging as we explore the full potential of AI.

  1. The Large Language Model (LLM) data sets on which generative AI is being trained have been built upon what may well be the most extensive violation of copyright in history. The power and promise of AI to reshape industries is rooted in intellectual property that is a necessary ingredient in the equation. That bad math, that bad faith, must be recalculated and recalibrated in order for AI to evolve in a way that aligns with the true spirit of this extraordinary innovation.
  2. Many challenges of the last decade remain constant in the AI era. Market power and abuse is a profound problem. It would be naive to rely on the generosity of trillion-dollar companies to silo negotiations to train tech companies’ large language models from the impact and the needs of the whole of the media business.

    Consider the way in which Google has historically argued that it doesn’t detract from media sites’ revenue because it drives traffic to them. On the contrary, it is well understood that “search results” have become overwhelmed with advertising and offer “snippets” (scraped and trained by publishers’ sites) that often satisfy the user without having to click through. Generative AI takes this so much further, by allowing the search engine to compile information from a multitude of sites—without necessarily crediting any of them, much less driving traffic.
  3. Privacy concerns around LLMs need more attention. Somehow the excitement and ready access to real-time output has swept this under the rug. Recent history should have taught us better. 

    Clearview AI, infamous for scraping billions of images across the internet without consent to fuel facial recognition, is the subject of a new book, Your Face Belongs to Us. And we learned in unsealed court docs earlier this year that Facebook used data brokers to train its machines to microtarget ads when they were forced to stop buying data outright. LLMs create a deep new well of data that is being opaquely collected and that will inevitably be exploited in ways consumers would not expect—or approve of.
  4. Generative AI will increasingly be used for storytelling, whether in the fields of news or entertainment. However, responsible and successful media organizations recognize its limitations and human hands will still shape the creative output of these tools. As long as this storytelling involves humans at any point in the creative process, this content will require protection under the law. Otherwise, the devaluation of creativity and truth will be inevitable. 
  5. The sustainability of the free press is an essential ingredient for democracy. A free press supports an informed public, which holds the powerful accountable. Healthy competition and capitalism have unlocked opportunities and efficiencies that media companies have benefited from, and there’s no reason to believe that the AI era will be different. However, given the unhealthy dominance of the big technology companies, the last decade has been perilous for the press.

    Therefore, any conversation around the future of AI must be anchored on the needs of an informed public, which starts and ends with an ecosystem that supports professional local and national newsrooms.

Given what we have witnessed over the past decade in the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, which has leveraged technology and vacuums in trust, the generative power of AI must give us pause. With power comes responsibility, and these are tools that we must use, and govern, wisely.

As someone who is listening, reading and thinking about what’s next as a full-time job, the acceleration of AI and its impact on media has got me on the edge of my seat. I’ve witnessed firsthand what media organizations have accomplished with AI for decades, and eagerly anticipate continued innovation. I also respect and acknowledge the efforts of media organizations to defend their work product, their creative output, the reporting, writing, photography, cinematography… as so much more than a mere data set. 

We know our work. We know our worth. And we know our audiences and respect their values, which is why they value us. While the questions and innovations will keep on coming, there are unequivocal truths that should guide us as we continue to build a strong media ecosystem.

Featured Post | Policy

Publishers and platforms face off over the value of news

Internationally, regulators are increasingly taking measures to address the impact that platforms have on the news business. In response, big tech platforms are trying to make the case that news is not central to their popularity or success, and going so far as to block news and political content in the face of new journalism-funding regulations taking shape around the world.

“This is now a global phenomenon and big tech platforms like Meta and Google can’t keep using bullying scare tactics. They have to show up and be prepared to negotiate meaningfully,” according to Jordan Guiao, research fellow at The Australia Institute’s Center for Responsible Technology.

Lawmakers in many different jurisdictions have begun to respond to the critical damage big tech platforms have inflicted on the funding model of the world’s media business. Those steps include the News Media Bargaining Code in Australia, the Online News Act in Canada and the proposed Journalism Competitive and Preservative Act in the U.S. (which Digital Content Next has endorsed). These laws are designed to mandate these tech companies to compensate publishers for the inclusion of the news content that is shared, or found their platforms. 

To bolster its position, Meta points to a study it commissioned from NERA economic consulting group which concluded that having platforms pay for news content wasn’t justified. However, advocates for the media industry dispute the accuracy of the findings. 

“People who consume news tend to spend a lot of time on a platform,” said Paul Deegan, chief executive of Canadian trade association News Media Canada. “They go there for news. They come back for more. They’re an attractive demographic in terms of skewing higher on educational attainment and income.” 

“Just in terms of value, [big tech platforms] get tremendous value from news,” he said.

Devaluing the news

However, according to Instagram chief Adam Mosseri: “[F]rom a platform’s perspective, any incremental engagement or revenue they might drive is not at all worth the scrutiny, negativity (let’s be honest), or integrity risks that come along with them.”

So, in response to increasing pressure to compensate publishers for news, and their own research findings that it doesn’t provide sufficient value to them, platforms have pulled back on including news content on their services. 

In February of 2022, Facebook dropped the word news from users’ “news feed.” And in June this year, publishers noted a significant drop-off in traffic from the site, suggesting an algorithmic adjustment to devalue news. And, after the launch of Threads earlier this month, Mosseri said that the platform would not take any steps to “encourage [politics and hard news] verticals.”

Tit-for-tat

In a direct response to policy efforts platforms have gone so far as to block news content altogether. In 2021, Meta not only blocked users in Australia from seeing news content on Facebook but prevented them from posting links to any news stories, regardless of where they were published. In less than a month, the company relented and has since signed licensing deals with publishers in Australia. Job postings in the country’s media sector are up 46% as of April this year.

However, with the passage of the Online News Act in June, Meta and Google have taken a harder tack against these regulatory efforts. Already the platforms have canceled previously struck deals with Canadian publishers and have started to block news in the country. 

Reprinted with the permission of Luke LeBrun (@_llebrun) Editor, PressProgress

In February, Google conducted a test to assess the impact of blocking news access for Canadians altogether as it evaluated possible responses to the Act. The company is reportedly holding off on fully implementing its response until the regulations are made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Since the passage of the Act last month, Meta has started to intermittently block Canadian news sources on its various services. 

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada has no plans to back down. In fact, they’ve taken the fight to a familiar battlefield on this issue: advertising. Publishers and the federal government in Canada have pulled their advertising from Meta’s services. Per regulatory filings, Canada accounts for $3 billion of Meta’s $117 billion in annual revenues. “The company is running the very real risk of losing more in revenue than they would pay news businesses under the Online News Act,” Deegan told the Financial Times.

The battle has escalated to news publishers rejecting Meta’s ads on their sites, which were purportedly intended to inform Canadian audiences about the news blocking initiated by the big tech platforms in Canada. 

Next steps?

Navigating what comes next will be the challenge facing both regulators and publishers. 

As of now, a version of the JCPA in California passed the state assembly in a 55-6 vote in June. Despite this, the bill has been put on hold for two years, with an initial state senate hearing scheduled for July 11 this year pushed back to 2024.

Other commentators in Canada view the contentious moves in response to early attempts to regulate the big platforms as an opportunity to further address the wider problems caused by the big tech companies.

“While the government of Canada certainly does not have the power to go back in time and block the consolidation that has occurred in the digital ad market, it is able to empower our competition and privacy commissioners to conduct an investigation into how Big Tech operates in the Canadian ad tech market,” wrote Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook Chair in media, ethics and communications, and Supriya Dwivedi, director of policy and engagement at the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy.

As well, there’s skepticism that Meta and Google can survive the reputational risks of continuing to block legitimate news sources on their platforms.

“Essentially, I don’t see blocking of news as a viable action for Meta and Google. From the Australian perspective, the news block was a bluff, and we called them out on it. In Canada I believe this will be much the same. And if they prolong it in any way, their reputation as a platform for misinformation will only be validated,” said the Australia Institute’s Guiao. “Meta and Google need news content to legitimize the accuracy, dependability and truthfulness of the information in their platforms.” 

Featured Post | Policy

Why Lina Khan won’t back down

It’s no small thing to be named Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Unsurprisingly, Lina Khan’s path to that position is an impressive one. Significantly, it was characterized by deep study and evaluation of monopolies and antitrust law. Absolutely everyone expected this to be central to her tenure, and she has not disappointed in that regard. With big tech companies in her sights, she’s taken on Meta for antitrust, Google for its ad practices, and Amazon for its consumer practices around Prime.

But there are those questioning Khan’s strategy of aggressively filing cases. The criticism built to a crescendo recently when U.S. District Court Jacqueline Scott Corley declined to block the Microsoft acquisition of Activision, handing a defeat to the FTC which had hoped to snuff out a potential monopoly in its infancy.

The FTC alleged that Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision (and its bevy of popular games such as Call of Duty) could lead to a dominant position for Microsoft in the gaming sector. Microsoft quickly sought to nip the FTC’s concerns in the bud by agreeing to keep popular game titles available on rival platforms. There is, however, some debate around whether or not that was enough to address competition issues.

There’s also some debate about whether Judge Corley correctly interpreted the law. Matt Stoller notes that the Clayton Act guards against mergers that “may substantially lessen competition” while Judge Corley stated in her opinion that FTC had not proven the deal “will substantially lessen competition.” Unfortunately for the FTC, the shift from “may” to “will” sets a substantially higher bar and one that courts have supported in recent history.

Corley’s decision has led numerous groups  (some of which receive an outsized portion of their funding from big tech companies) to loudly question Kahn’s strategy at the FTC. It’s a bit hard to take these Monday morning quarterbacks very seriously, however, because some of these same groups also argue at every turn to limit the FTC’s regulatory authority. Their criticism of the FTC and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division is so routine and frequent that you are left to wonder whether they envision any role for the federal government in ensuring a fair marketplace. Most, however, understand that the FTC plays a critical role in enforcing federal consumer protection laws that prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices—including those that are anticompetitive.

As anticipated, Khan is clearly trying to shift the courts’ interpretation of competition and antitrust law. Of her strategy, she’s unabashedly stated that “you lose 100% of the shots you don’t take.” And given her track record so far, a rumored major antitrust suit in the works against Amazon along with newly-released merger guidelines from the FTC and Department of Justice, she’s going to keep taking shots—big ones. On top of these high-profile cases, as Jessica Rich, former Director of the FTC Bureau of Competition, opined earlier this year, the FTC has seemingly shifted its focus from “whack-a-mole” enforcement to broader rulemaking efforts.

Khan’s efforts to move the FTC into a stronger enforcement position is one that reflects a global trend, as regulators around the world ramp up their competition and antitrust efforts. For example, Europe recently enacted the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, which will lead to a new wave of crackdown on dominant companies. This isn’t just Kahn’s concern, or an American concern. Policymakers around the world are trying to level the playing field.

As to Kahn’s efforts to step up the FTC’s position as rule maker and enforcer, it is critical to recognize that the history of the FTC’s authority and posture is characterized by ebbs and flows. Courts and Congress have empowered or restrained the FTC at various points in our history. For most of the last 20 years, FTC Chairs have had to operate with one eye over their shoulder.

Former Chair Jon Leibowitz secured high profile consent decrees with Google and Facebook over consumer privacy violations. These decrees were heralded as landmark agreements and have also provided the FTC with access and leverage with these companies. However, it is important to note that the consent decrees were pursued instead of expensive, more risky lawsuits. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, many have criticized the FTC for not doing enough to protect consumers and prevent monopolization. And this is where Kahn’s leadership comes into play in a big way.

Changing the courts’ interpretation of competition law is not easy. But this change—modernization—happens in every facet of law, and it is necessary to adapt to new factors. Until and unless Congress can break the permanent state of gridlock, we should support Khan’s efforts to establish a more proactive and robust role for the FTC, one that can foster more healthy competition to the benefit of consumers and businesses.

Opener art: Lina Khan, Competition and Regulation in Disrupted Times, Brussels, Belgium
Used under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Credit: Cory Doctorow
Policy

DCN stands with global media community as Google and Meta threaten to take down news in Canada

DCN stands with publishers around the globe in reaction to Facebook and Google’s efforts to undermine Canada’s new law to help address the imbalance in market power. Digital Content Next was one of 18 media organizations worldwide that issued a joint statement on July 5, 2023 in response to Google and Meta’s threat to take down news in Canada after Canada’s parliament passed the Online News Act (C-18) in June.

In the words of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “This is not just a dispute over advertising, it is also dispute over democracy. It’s a question of recognizing the role internet giants—like Facebook Meta, Google and others—have in our lives and therefore the responsibility they also wield.  …this goes to the core of a free and informed society that is able to take responsible decisions in a democracy citizens need to have access to quality journalism that is properly paid.

The fact that Facebook doesn’t want to recognize the hard work of professional journalists is something that undermines the very fabric of democracy. So, Canada—and allies around the world—are going to stand strong and demonstrate that we will not flinch in our defense of fundamental foundational principles of democracy like a free, quality, informed press.”

Read the full joint statement here.

Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Policy

DCN’s Principles for Development and Governance of Generative AI

PDF Version
Download pdf

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

1) Developers and deployers of GAI must respect creators’ rights to their content. Developers and deployers of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) systems—as well as legislators, regulators and other parties involved in drafting laws and policies regulating GAI—must respect the value of creators’ proprietary content.

2) Publishers are entitled to negotiate for and receive fair compensation for use of their IP. Use of original content by GAI systems for training, surfacing or synthesizing is not authorized by most publishers’ terms and conditions, or contemplated by existing agreements (for example, for search). GAI system developers and deployers should not be crawling, ingesting or using publishers’ proprietary content for these three stages without express authorization.

3) Copyright laws protect content creators from the unlicensed use of their content. Like all other uses of copyrighted works, use of copyrighted works in AI systems are subject to analysis under copyright and fair use law. Most of the use of publishers’ original content by AI systems for both training and output purposes would likely be found to go far beyond the scope of fair use as set forth in the Copyright Act and established case law. Exceptions to copyright protections for text and data mining (TDM) should be narrowly tailored to not damage content publishers or become pathways for uses that would otherwise require permission. 

TRANSPARENCY

4) GAI systems should be transparent to publishers and users. Strong regulations and policies imposing proportionate transparency requirements are needed to the extent necessary for publishers to enforce their IP rights where publishers’ copyright-protected content is included in training datasets. Generative outputs that use publisher content should include clear and prominent attributions in a way that identifies to users the original sources of the output (not third-party news aggregators) and encourages users to navigate to those sources. Users should also be provided with comprehensible information about how such systems operate to make judgments about system quality and trustworthiness.

ACCOUNTABILITY

5) Deployers of GAI systems should be held accountable for system outputs. GAI systems pose risks for competition and public trust in publishers’ content. This can be compounded by GAI systems generating content that improperly attributes false information to publishers. Deployers of GAI systems should be legally responsible for the output of their systems.

FAIRNESS

6) GAI systems should not create, or risk creating, unfair market or competition outcomes. Regulators should be attuned to ensuring GAI systems are designed, trained, deployed, and used in a way that is compliant with competition laws and principles.

SAFETY

7) GAI systems should be safe and address privacy risks. Collection and use of personal data in GAI system design, training and use should be minimal, disclosed to users in an easily understandable manner and in line with Fair Information Privacy Principles (FIPPS). Systems should not reinforce biases or facilitate discrimination.

PDF Version
Download pdf

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Generative AI: threats and promise for a new world

At DCN, we’ve been diving deep into Generative AI – trying to understand what it is and what it isn’t and sort through the implications for professional content creators. We have met with hundreds of executives, tech specialists, journalists, artists, and creators who work within our member companies to create and monetize premium original content. We’ve heard first-hand what the content community is excited about and what gives them pause. Based on these conversations and our own research, we see several topics around Generative AI (GAI) that merit a closer look.

Protection for creators

Generative AI systems need to be designed in a way that respects professional content creators and the value of their IP. Perhaps the biggest concern is the loss of control over the content, in which they have heavily invested. GAI systems train by using digital content such as journalism and photos. However, they also scrape that content for reuse in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes – some of which may undermine the business model of the content creator.

While the scraping of original content for training may seem relatively benign, Generative AI companies will clearly reap huge benefits. The use of premium trusted content helps these systems understand cultural nuances and avoid problems of misinformation and factual inaccuracies. If the old axiom of “garbage in, garbage out” applies, companies profiting from GAI should appropriately value premium trusted content.

That said, scraping of content for reuse seems highly problematic as the creator might lose the ability to distribute and monetize the content as they see fit. We’ve heard stories of Generative AI systems providing subscription content to non-subscribers and amalgamations of general news content without any attribution to the organizations which funded its creation. Stripping content creators of control over their work effectively deprives them of the ability and incentive to invest in new content. It seems like there should be a win-win here where GAI systems fairly compensate and credit professional content creators for their work.

Transparency

Companies that develop GAI systems should be transparent with the public so that we can fully assess the impacts on our society and address the consequences. If Generative AI fulfills its promise, then whole industries and sectors will be radically changed. In particular, consumer experiences with news and entertainment are likely to be upended.

With all that change, intentional and unintentional consequences are likely to occur. Generative AI systems have been shown to be flat out wrong, making up convincing sounding sources or generating “quotes” and articles to back up their responses which may be misattributed to individuals, institutions, or media brands.

There is an open question about the extent that these systems could be manipulated by bad actors looking to flood the public square with misinformation. As anyone can see, the world isn’t a perfect place. And, sadly, the internet is loaded with hateful, harmful speech. More subtly, however, there are conscious and unconscious biases baked into all kinds of reporting and opinion pieces. To the extent that Generative AI systems are training on content they scrape from the web, they may be recycling hate speech or perpetuating biases.

Therefore, allowing these systems to be developed and operate in a black box would invite all kinds of problems without an opportunity to correct mistakes before they run wild. Most of the early legislation around AI calls for transparency so that regulators and researchers can assess the potential impacts and offer solutions before actual harms are committed.

Competition

The tech industry currently has a competition problem – a lack of competition to be exact. While those dominant companies are currently under intense antitrust scrutiny, there is a concern that they may use the hype cycle of Generative AI to wrongly argue that competition exists and that regulators need to back off.

But the reality is that policymakers should be watchful to ensure that major tech companies don’t extend their dominance to the AI market. Generative AI systems are expensive to create and maintain. With such a high barrier to enter this marketplace, there is a danger that the biggest, most powerful tech companies will leverage their position and unrivaled resources to dominate the nascent GAI field.

This same playbook has been used before – Facebook leveraged its dominant position to buy out the competition. Google allocated its search dominance to acquire a monopoly position in the digital advertising infrastructure. And Amazon continues to leverage its position to drive competing ecommerce platforms into irrelevance. We should be careful to ensure that GAI systems aren’t used to maintain or increase dominance in markets and that these systems aren’t self-preferencing services from a handful of major companies to the exclusion of competitors. 

TL:DR

Undoubtedly, Generative AI is an exciting new tool that offers efficiencies for artists, journalists, and other creators along with the promise of a bright new future for industries and consumers alike. And these changes are coming fast. Undoubtedly, the speed and scale of the development and deployment of GAI systems will only accelerate.

In the right hands, these new tools could revolutionize the way we interact, create, problem solve and so much more. However, bad actors also have access to these powerful tools. Therefore, problems with competition, misinformation, election meddling, and sabotage are likely to worsen.

As an industry and society, we should encourage the development of ethical guardrails to minimize the harms and maximize the potential associated with Generative AI technologies. In doing so, we can strengthen our commitment to protect consumers and incentivize new and established voices.

AMERICA Act screencap placeholder
Policy | Press Release

Digital Content Next Endorses Bi-Partisan AMERICA Act to Protect Trust in Online Advertising

NEW YORK – March 30, 2023 – In an effort to provide clarity and transparency in the digital advertising marketplace, Digital Content Next (DCN), the trade association that exclusively represents more than 60 high quality digital media companies and thousands of trusted media brands, endorses the bi-partisan bill, the AMERICA Act.  

“The digital advertising marketplace operates like a financial marketplace with brokers representing buyers and sellers. But, unlike financial markets, there are no requirements for transparency and there are no rules to avoid conflicts of interest and insider trading.” said Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next. “We support the AMERICA Act because it will reinforce the basic free market tenets of competition and transparency in digital advertising, which fuels the online content we all read and love and are a necessity for all sorts of businesses – small and large – to efficiently reach consumers.” 

As alleged by the Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of state attorneys general, the digital advertising marketplace is plagued by shady middlemen charging exorbitant fees and engaging in questionable business practices which ultimately translates into higher costs and reduced privacy for consumers. While dominant ad tech companies make huge profits, publishers and advertisers get squeezed. And high costs are passed on to American consumers. 

“This lack of competition in digital advertising means that monopoly rents are being imposed upon every website that is ad-supported and every company—small, medium, or large—that relies on internet advertising to grow its business,“ said U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). “It is essentially a tax on thousands of American businesses, and thus a tax on millions of American consumers.”  

If you’d like to watch or share a version without captions, click here.

Almar Latour, CEO, Dow Jones and Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next in conversation at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Policy | Video

Brand-true omnichannel strategy dominates the 2023 DCN: Next Summit

While evergreen issues around trust and a focus on the audience experience peppered the first in-person DCN Next: Summit since 2020, emerging opportunities – and concerns – around generative AI were also focal at the event. Held at the Fort Lauderdale beachfront Conrad Hotel, the 2023 summit hosted a wide range of speakers from inside and outside the DCN membership to discuss the business and future of media, brand mission, omnichannel strategy, consumer preferences, and the impact of the challenging economic and regulatory climate.

Surveying the regulatory landscape

DCN CEO Jason Kint kicked off the event with a focus on current key regulatory issues that impact digital media. He emphasized that the focus must remain on aligning content experiences, advertising behavior, and data usage with consumer expectations. He also looked at the current state of antitrust regulation.

As Kat Downs Mulder, SVP and GM of Yahoo News put it: media brands have a responsibility, in asking consumers for their information through sign-ons, “to be protective of our asks and thoughtful about what we request.”

Shoshana Zuboff, Harvard Business School professor and author of the book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism at the DCN: Next Summit 2023
Shoshana Zuboff, author of the book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Kint’s points were hammered home by Shoshana Zuboff, Harvard Business School professor and author of the book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Zuboff delineated the history of privacy erosion leading to tech companies’ engagement in a “secret massive scale extraction of human data” and how regulation is a driving factor in reining it in.

The current drive towards antitrust and reining in the dominance a few players have over the ad market was a focal point for Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, who addressed attendees via Zoom. He discussed a bill he is reintroducing “in a few weeks with bipartisan support,” which is designed to restore and protect competition in digital advertising and improve advertising transparency.

“Unfortunately, big tech behemoths like Google have inserted themselves as middlemen into this relationship, extracting monopoly rents not just on their own properties, but from every corner of the entire internet ecosystem.”

How brand focus empowers growth

The impact of emerging regulation is far from the only challenge media executives currently face. Speakers touched on inflation, supply chain disruption, European conflict, U.S.-China tensions, the ongoing impact of Covid, climate concerns, labor challenges, the erosion of trust in institutions, and the fight for free speech.

However, Almar Latour, CEO, Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal publisher (pictured at top) said that challenges like these actually drive brands closer to their mission. For his brands, that mission is to go deep with products to provide truth relevant to different aspects of the business world, he added. This strategy is one he believes will lead to subscription growth.

Producing great products consumers love and return to over and over is indeed a driving factor in subscription strategy, as illustrated in a discussion between Julia Beizer, Bloomberg Media CEO and chief digital officer and Mulder. She noted that consumers value connecting with authoritative voices in brand podcasts and newsletters.

Bloomberg Media CEO and chief digital officer Julia Beizer, & SVP and GM of Yahoo News Kat Downs Mulder in conversation with Axios' media reporter Sara Fischer at the 2023 DCN Next:Summit
Bloomberg Media CEO and chief digital officer Julia Beizer, & SVP and GM of Yahoo News Kat Downs Mulder in conversation with Axios’ media reporter Sara Fischer.

Indeed, building an infrastructure on the foundation of staying true to one’s brand is key to success, according to Bonin Bough, Group Black co-founder and chief strategy officer.

Brand, however, is not some vague marketing tool. Scott Mills, BET president and CEO said that maximizing brand requires a comprehensive data-driven ecosystem encompassing linear, streaming, and digital platforms.

Advocating for truth and accuracy

Maximizing brand value requires providing consumers with a source of much-needed, trustworthy information – particularly when others seek to tamp it down and create a void that is often filled with dis- or misinformation.

Scott Mills, BET president at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Scott Mills, president of BET

Addressing Florida’s Department of Education rejection of the AP African American History course, Mills noted that such actions will “drive us to allocate more of our resources or more of our attention to ensuring that our community—and people who value and respect our community—have access to accurate information.”

Clearly, the need for accurate information is a global one, though journalistic approaches and press freedoms vary widely. In his work as the manager for East and Southern Africa at the organization Journalists for Human Rights, Dr. Siyabulela Mandela has found that offering training to local journalists not only empowers them, but helps their work better serve local communities. He said that improving journalism’s role of providing checks to those in power is critical at a time when “there seems to be a shift from more democratic ways of doing things towards more totalitarian ways.”

Dr. Siyabulela Mandela, manager for East and Southern Africa at the organization Journalists for Human Rights, speaking at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Dr. Siyabulela Mandela, Journalists for Human Rights

Mandela advocates for an approach that enables Western journalists to reframe stories in East and Southern Africa and the Middle East with a more contextual focus on human rights by leveraging his organization’s local knowledge base. He favors the idea of a collaborative exchange program for mutual training with journalists from East and Southern Africa. Each, he pointed out, has much to learn from each other.

Evolving with the times

In addition to providing content that continues to address the needs of audiences, speakers discussed how innovation in storytelling provides creative and impactful ways to engage and inform audiences.

For Emblematic founder and CEO Nonny de la Pena, that means finding new ways to use virtual reality. Nicknamed “the godmother of VR” de la Pena illustrated techniques and showed behind the scenes insights into how some of the most powerful VR stories have been created. However, despite her enthusiasm, she said that given the fact that creators of misinformation often leverage powerful tech, it is essential to establish immutable provenance for footage to make it difficult to manipulate.

Alice McKown, publisher and CRO of The Atlantic speaking at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Alice McKown, publisher and CRO of The Atlantic

Encompassing non-traditional strategies to engage new audiences requires portfolio diversification, noted Alice McKown, publisher and CRO of The Atlantic. While the company has digitized its entire archive of 30,000 articles from its 165 years, it also has expanded efforts into creating new ways to leverage its IP, including immersive art exhibits, video, podcasts, book publishing, and events.

Hannah Yang, Chief Growth Officer of The New York Times Speaking at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Hannah Yang, Chief Growth Officer, New York Times

The National Geographic also has instituted strategies to evolve with the times while staying true to the brand’s core attributes. The magazine still attracts a relatively small, but incredibly loyal following, according to editor-in-chief Nathan Lump. These days, however, National Geographic brand reaches millions of people via social media, the National Geographic Channel on Disney Plus, virtual reality, live events, a travel business, consumer products, books.

Given the many ways that the brand now reaches audiences, Lump pointed out that National Geographic is the biggest it’s ever been in its 135 years. National Geographic boasts 714 million global followers across the major social platforms alone.

For The New York Times, Chief Growth Officer, Hannah Yang told the audience that its impressive subscription growth is achieved through three well-defined missions: a subscription growth mission to meet financial goals; consumer-facing mission offering desired options such as games and cooking; and platform mission to ensure that all parts of the business have the technology and data perspective they need to thrive.

What’s next

“There’s never been a better time to monetize audiences,” noted Alex Michael, managing director of LionTree Group. He stressed the value of omnichannel strategy and bundling while discussing the investment opportunities his company is leaning into this year.

Richard Plepler, founder, EDEN Productions and former HBO chairman and CEO speaking at the 2023 DCN: Next Summit
Richard Plepler, founder, EDEN Productions

The power of omnichannel was echoed by a number of speakers, including board member Robin Thurston, Outside Interactive founder and CEO.  He said, “The concept of single sign-on omnichannel helps connect the dots and create value.”

Richard Plepler, founder, EDEN Productions and former HBO chairman and CEO, reminded attendees of something he’s advocated for many years: quality over quantity. “More is not better; only better is better. I am not of the belief that tonnage gets you more subscribers – what gets you more subscribers is when brands deliver on their promise.”

As DCN members map out strategies for 2023, innovation and audience focus remain constant. However, to win amidst contemporary challenges developing a seamless omnichannel strategy, while staying to brand mission, will be key to attracting new consumers and retaining existing ones.

Featured Post | Policy

Content production policy captures the global spotlight

Discoverability, funding, IP ownership, and cultural sovereignty are topics at the forefront of how and to what degree streaming companies should be put under government regulations. As today’s over-the-top streaming platforms continue to navigate emerging domestic rules and regulations, jurisdictions outside the U.S. have started to introduce new content and funding obligations for these services.

The ability to transcend borders has long been a defining characteristic of video streaming platforms: Anyone with an internet connection could view all the content. Initially, incumbent broadcasters and traditional distribution channels faced massive disruption as consumer preference shifted away from linear channels to the choice of what to watch and listen to from hundreds of options. With the wide adoption of digital distribution technology, streaming services became content creators themselves, while traditional content producers launched non-linear platforms to compete.

As is often the case with rapid technological advancements, legislation and regulation are now playing catch up. Local players in global markets have long made the case that the playing field must be leveled against the size of U.S.-based streaming companies, and officials have started to listen. Regulations are evolving to include localized content mandates and participation in domestic industry. Here’s how it’s playing out.

Europeans make early moves

In 2018, the European Union passed the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive which included stipulations that the streaming platforms must offer a 30% quota of European content to European consumers. It also built a framework that allowed individual countries to mandate the streamers allocate revenues back into domestic production.

Right now, France is one of the countries with strongest local content rules. Streaming platforms must reinvest 20 to 25% of the domestic revenues back into French production. In France and elsewhere in Europe, since the regulations have been in place, Netflix has reached or exceeded the 30% local content requirements. 

English language markets feel the squeeze

Because of the cultural juggernaut that is the U.S., other English-language regions have long felt compelled to shore up local production with support from their respective governments. This trend continues to be a flash point in debates about government overreach.

At the end of January, the Canadian senate passed Bill C-11 or the “Online Streaming Act,” an updated version of the country’s Broadcasting Act, which will allow the federal regulator to include international streaming services in its powers to levy fees and control how content is displayed. It’s expected to become law within a few weeks. Canadian governments have long sought to counter the influence of the cultural output south of its border, and the legislation attempts to extend those rules into the online space. 

Similarly, Australia announced its own new “National Cultural Policy” around the same time. While it doesn’t outline the exact plans to regulate online streaming services, the Australian government laid out its goals to address the decline in local broadcasting revenues and bolster the creation of domestic productions.

While the report acknowledged the level of quality and popularity of the current slate of Australian content on the platforms, “these services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of mass content produced in other countries, particularly the United States, risks drowning out the voices of Australian storytellers,” read the Australian government’s cultural policy plan “Revive.”

While no longer part of the AVMS, the UK’s government continues to investigate the creation of rules so that the Office of Communication (Ofcom) will have jurisdiction over overseas streaming services. This recently came to a head when complaints about the Netflix docuseries featuring Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had no official avenues to be heard.

Canada’s new legislation stands out 

The proposed legislation north of the border has faced headwinds from entities both large and small because of the unique nature of the proposed laws. “C-11 is a bit of an outlier. In that it extends to user generated content on platforms like YouTube or Tik Tok. The European example does not,” said the University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law, Michael Geist. 

Major pushback has resulted in the inclusion of user generated content and subsequent amendments have been put forward to avoid some of the issues with attempting to put all online content under the Canadian regulatory umbrella.

In September, Disney and Spotify asked the federal government to be more flexible about what it considered “Canadian content.” The streaming services warned that certain material, while ostensibly produced in Canada with a Canadian cast, wouldn’t count under the current rules, which include Canadian ownership of intellectual properties.

However, it’s worth noting that trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) include provisions that protect the ability of companies to trade in audiovisual services across the Canada-U.S. border. Already, the U.S. embassy has expressed reservations about the proposed laws violating non-discrimination terms of the free trade agreements signed by the two countries.

While the bill is slated to pass the legislature, much of the specifics will need to be determined by the arms length content regulator the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC). So the final rules and the structure of the regulatory framework remains unclear and will be subject to a public consultation process.

Despite the efforts in international English-language markets to avoid being drowned out, English language markets still generally benefit from the sympatico of shared language with the largest content producing sector in the world. 

“Those English markets have had significant success, attracting investment from large streaming services and large production companies,” said Geist. “To Canada’s case, it’s a thriving sector that’s based in part on tax, [and] part on proximity to the U.S. market. So I don’t know that that necessarily suggests that what you need is more protection.”

Industry-Research | Policy

A state-by-state evaluation of internet privacy laws

Laws governing online privacy in the U.S. vary widely from state to state. To find out how each U.S. state ranks from least to most private, Comparitech evaluated each and every one of them based on 25 key criteria. The results reveal a wide range of varying privacy protections, that are visualized in the map below. Scores are displayed as percentages, with a score of 25 out of 25 being 100%.

The criteria range from laws that govern how companies can use and disclose customer data to those that protect journalists, children, and employees. The results of our research are compiled into the table below, with a simple “yes” or “no” answer as to whether an applicable law exists in each state. In some cases, where laws partially cover an area (e.g. genetic data protection is only offered for insurance purposes), states may score half a point. This is depicted by an orange square in the chart below.

2023 key updates and trends

During our 2023 edition of this evaluation, several key updates provided insight into privacy law trends within the U.S.:

  • Connecticut enacted a law to protect personal data and to regulate online monitoring (it’s effective from July 1, 2023)
  • Utah enacted its Consumer Privacy Act (it’s effective from December 31, 2023)
  • California strengthened its data privacy laws to protect employee data and children’s data
  • New York added a section to its Civil Rights Code to create safeguards for electronic monitoring in the workplace
  • Hawaii created social media privacy laws for employers and educational institutions
  • Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin added insurance data security laws, taking the number of states that have implemented the Data Security Model Law, which was created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), to 22
  • Colorado introduced a statute to govern artificial intelligence (AI) use, particularly surrounding the use of facial recognition technology. It becomes one of only a handful of states (6) that govern the use of AI within the state
  • Only 23 states offer specific safeguards for genetic data–and ten of these only provide some protections (e.g. for insurance purposes)
  • Only five states have laws to protect the collection and sale of geolocation data by organizations
  • Only four states stipulate that consumers have the right to request inaccurate personal data be amended by companies

Since last year’s evaluation, we added sections to cover specific laws on:

  • Employee data privacy
  • Genetic data
  • Geolocation data
  • Companies allowing customers to correct inaccurate data

We also combined:

  • Shield laws and court-recognized privileges for journalists into one category with the former scoring a full point and the latter scoring half a point (if no shield law is in place)

The states in the U.S. that most rigorously govern online privacy

California

Score: 80%

Our top scorer for the fourth update running, California, has enacted many laws for specific privacy issues that other states ignore. Not only did the state create what the ACLU called the most comprehensive digital privacy law in the nation, but it continues to add to and strengthen this law. As mentioned above, California has strengthened its privacy protections by ensuring employees’ data is governed by the law, making it the only state to have this provision in place at the time of writing. It’s also one of just two states to enact a law that specifically protects data gathered from the internet-of-things (Oregon is the other) and to protect privacy rights and enforce marketing restrictions for minors (Delaware is the other). It’s also one of a handful of states to protect the collection and sale of geolocation data.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prevents any law enforcement or investigative entity from forcing a company to give up electronic data or communications without a warrant. This includes cloud data, metadata, emails, text messages, location data, and device searches. Although other states have similar laws protecting some of these forms of data, California has so far been the only state to protect it all.

On June 26, 2018, California passed one of the toughest privacy laws in the United States, the Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. Effective in 2020, this bill empowers consumers with the right to know what information any company has collected about them and with whom that information is shared. Furthermore, consumers can demand that a company delete their personal data and have any inaccurate data amended.

Utah

Score: 52%

Utah’s recent enactment of the Consumer Privacy Act sees it rising through the rankings this year to take second place (alongside Virginia). This act, which comes into power on December 31, 2023, ensures consumers are aware of the data companies are collecting on them, can opt out of third-party data sharing, and can request that their data is deleted. The act also protects geolocation data, making Utah one of just five states to have this specific provision within its data protection laws.

Other key areas for Utah include data disposal laws for governments and companies, social media privacy laws for employers and educational institutions, and laws to govern the use of artificial intelligence and genetic data.

Virginia

Score: 52%

While there aren’t any new laws within Virginia for this update, its Consumer Data Protection Act ensures companies must delete personal data on demand, must enable customers to opt out of third-party data sharing, must disclose what data they’re collecting from customers, and must correct any inaccurate data. This law also provides protection for consumers’ geolocation data.

Virginia’s DMV doesn’t use facial recognition technologies and doesn’t share its photo database with federal agencies.

Honorable mentions

Delaware

Score: 46%

Delaware remains within the top five this year. Laws that require the government to dispose of customer data after a set period of time, protect genetic data, protect the privacy of e-reader and library data, and protect minors help the state stand out.

There were no updates for Delaware this year. However, it is one of the states that require consent from both parties before call recording can be carried out.

Illinois

Score: 40%

Illinois paved the way for legislation that specifically protects biometric data like fingerprints, face recognition scans, and retina scans, being the first state to enact this way back in 2008. It is only in recent years that several other states (California, Texas, and Washington) have followed suit. It is also one of 18 states to have a comprehensive genetic data protection law.

Both companies and the government must dispose of personal data after a set period of time. Employers and schools cannot force employees and students to hand over social media account login information. The state also enforces strict regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence for video interviews and requires consent from both parties when recording calls.

States lagging in enacting privacy laws

None of the below states have comprehensive data privacy laws. None protect IoT data, biometric data, geolocation data, employee data, minors’ data, e-reader privacy, or the use of AI. Only South Dakota offers some protection to genetic data when it comes to the use for insurance purposes. ISPs are able to share customer data without explicit consent and law enforcement has unwarranted access to service provider data on users.

All of them have failed to introduce laws on data disposal, electronic monitoring by employers, social media monitoring by employers and educational institutions, and to govern data brokers.

Idaho

Score: 6%

Idaho scores one point for its law to protect K-12 student information and half a point for its court-recognized privilege for journalists.

Pennsylvania

Score: 8%

Pennsylvania has a shield law to protect journalists and requires two parties to consent to their calls being recorded.

Mississippi

Score: 8%

Mississippi also scores 8% or 2/25. Like Pennsylvania it also has a shield law to protect journalists but only one party is required to consent to call recording. Mississippi’s second point comes from its insurance data security law.

South Dakota

Score: 10%

In addition to a law to protect K-12 student information and a shield law to protect journalists, SD scores an additional 0.5 points thanks to some of the safeguards offered when it comes to genetic data. South Dakotan law specifies that the use of genetic tests in offer, sale, or renewal of insurance is prohibited, as is the sharing of genetic information with health carriers or life/long-term care insurers.

Iowa

Score: 10%

Iowa has a law to protect K-12 student information and an insurance data security law. It also scores 0.5 points for its court-recognized privilege for journalists.

Federal privacy laws

Some aspects of online privacy are governed by the federal U.S. government rather than state governments. Partial regulations exist, but there is no all-encompassing law regulating the collection, storage, or use of personal data in the U.S.

The U,S. Constitution never mentions privacy specifically and only protects against state actors, not individuals. However, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments limit government intrusion on individuals’ right to privacy.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter vs. United States that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location information. This means police now have to seek a warrant to obtain this data. While a success for privacy, there are still numerous questions over the government’s and law enforcement’s geolocation tracking abilities. Recently, it was found that law enforcement is purchasing commercially-available geolocation data so as to circumnavigate the warrant requirements.

The Privacy Act of 1974 governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable info about individuals stored by federal agencies. Again, this restricts how the government can access and use records and does not apply to individuals or businesses.

HIPAA was enacted in 1996 to protect medical records.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allows individuals to opt out of unwanted credit offers and obtain one free credit report from each of the major credit reporting agencies every year.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act can be used to impose criminal sanctions on anyone who intercepts electronic communications without consent, but a number of loopholes have rendered the law mostly useless, experts say.

The 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act requires that websites directed at children under the age of 13 must get parental consent among other compliance standards. The law has widely been discredited as ineffective and even counterproductive when it comes to protecting kids online.

Other federal laws relating to computer security and privacy law include (source: Wikipedia):

  • 1970 U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act
  • 1970 U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act
  • 1974 U.S. Privacy Act
  • 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines
  • 1984 U.S. Medical Computer Crime Act
  • 1984 U.S. Federal Computer Crime Act (strengthened in 1986 and 1994)
  • 1986 U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (amended in 1986, 1994, 1996 and 2001)
  • 1986 U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
  • 1987 U.S. Computer Security Act (Repealed by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002)
  • 1988 U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act
  • 1990 United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act
  • 1991 U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines
  • 1992 OECD Guidelines to Serve as a Total Security Framework
  • 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
  • 1995 Council Directive on Data Protection for the European Union (EU)
  • 1996 U.S. Economic and Protection of Proprietary Information Act
  • 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (requirement added in December 2000)
  • 1998 U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
  • 1999 U.S. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
  • 2000 U.S. Congress Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”)
  • 2001 U.S. Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act
  • 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA)
  • 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

Prospects for future privacy legislation

Federal privacy legislation has been proposed a few times since 2019 but until recently such proposals didn’t have much bipartisan support. 2022 saw the first bipartisan bill, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act. That could result in some federal privacy law being passed in 2023, but it’s no guarantee.

My concern is that a federal law would preempt state laws like California’s CCPA, and the federal law might do less to protect people’s privacy. Influence from anti-privacy lobbyists could neuter the federal law by the time the president signs it, leaving individual states with little recourse.

A global federal privacy law is still a long way off. As the home of the world’s biggest tech companies, I think the U.S. needs to set a precedent first.

About the author

Paul Bischoff is editor of Comparitech and a regular commentator on cyber security and privacy topics in national and international media including New York Times, BBC, Forbes, The Guardian and many others. He’s been writing about the tech industry since 2012 for publications like Tech in Asia, Mashable, and various startup blogs.

©2023 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.