The notion of standing on the shoulders of giants is often referenced.
At a Congressional hearing this past Thursday, academic giants stood on NetChoice’s shoulders to bolster their arguments against the US’s adoption of EU regulations by citing NetChoice’s analysis.
The Congressional Subcommittee convened this hearing to discuss how the EU privacy laws impact the US and whether the US should mirror the EU.
Four academic experts served on the panel of this hearing. All but one stated clearly that the United States should not adopt the EU model for online-behavioral-advertising. In addition, the academics added “strict regulations could damage the ability of internet firms to support free services through advertising.”
“We should not work towards an approach that’s exactly like the EU’s.” – ITA
A fifth panelist from the International Trade Administration (ITA) stated, “we should not work towards an approach that’s exactly like the EU’s.”
But this comes as no surprise to us.
NetChoice has repeatedly stated the harms of the US adopting an EU-style opt-in for OBA, even analyzing exiting work to find that if the US adopts an EU-style opt-in for OBA it would cost US businesses $33 billion over five years.
One of the panelists, Dr. Catherine Tucker of MIT, whose researched formed the base for our analysis, reinforced her warnings of harm by citing the $33 billion cost to the US.
So now academia has added its voice and data to further prove that the US should not adopt the EU privacy model.
NetChoice sometimes stands on the shoulders of giants to see farther. And this past Thursday, it was nice to give a boost to the giants.
Related articles
- Congressional Subcommittee own Press Statement
- Hobbled by Murphy’s Law? (research-live.com)
- Less Web Tracking Means Less Effective Ads, Researcher Says (bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Stronger Online Privacy Regulation Comes with Tradeoffs (techland.time.com)
