Tech News

I can’t get it out of my head: A honkingly big Caterpillar sign that read, “JOIN US AS WE BUILD A BETTER WORLD.” The digital recruitment billboard at CES 2023 followed promos for an autonomous compactor and excavator, and proceeded another callout: “CHECK OUT OUR BIG AUTONOMOUS TRUCK .”

I did, and boy was it ever.

A “better world” could mean anything in corporate-speak, but in this case, the company is talking specifically about sustainability — and using aspirational language to distance itself from a fossil-fueled role in carving up the earth. Like Caterpillar, many of the exhibitors I saw as I walked the tech-show floor seemed to be rinsing their brands via earthly taglines, stock photos of crops and sunbeams, plastic trees and/or AstroTurf. I find this sort of thing especially distracting now that climate is my main beat, and that’s unfortunate, because there was still lots of intriguing climate (and adjacent) tech on display this year, tucked in among the vague evocations of nature.

When I arrived in Vegas my colleague Ingrid asked if the show would feature mostly adaptive tech (for coping with the consequences of climate change) or mitigative tech (for direct emission cuts). I saw a mix of both, but much of what caught my attention skewed toward adaption. And to that end, this year CES practically overflowed with portable batteries and solar gear for campers and preppers alike. Really, there was no escape.

Highlights included EcoFlow’s “whole-home” backup power box and Jackery’s new solar generator, but I’m sure it’s not a leap to say we should expect more gear like this in the coming years — as more people cope with climate anxiety and extreme weather events alike.

There was a ton of conservation-geared tech, too. Moen debuted a smart sprinkler with soil sensors and Rachio announced a $100 smart hose timer, both aiming to help lawn-havers save water and lower their bills.

For farmers, Meropy showed off its crop-watching robot, which rolls over fields on legs that look like giant hairbrush bristles. “The idea is to provide information to farmers to help them reduce the amount of chemicals they put on the plots,” co-founder and CEO William Guitton said in an interview with TechCrunch. Meropy’s bots weigh 15 kg (about 33 pounds) and pack cameras that “scan over and under the foliage,” Guitton said.

Along similar lines, John Deere showcased farming equipment that’s also supposed to reduce fertilizer use. Plus, Samsung announced washing machine tech that’s intended to save energy and halve microplastic pollution, while AMD highlighted energy efficiency gains in its new chips.

As for emissions mitigation, Schneider Electric made some waves with a smart-home system that’s centered around solar and energy storage. Schneider executive Jaser Faruq told TechCrunch he hopes the firm’s app will offer a “much more interesting, fulfilling experience for customers to feel like they’re in control of their power.” Ideally, the system will help users conserve energy and reduce their reliance on fossil fuel-powered grids, Faruq added. Some of the company’s energy-storage tech reminded me a lot of Tesla’s, which is no coincidence; Faruq previously worked in Tesla’s power storage and solar energy division.

No Traffic, a company that automates and surveils intersections, also caught my eye. When I asked if its name represented a goal or was just aspirational, co-founder and CEO Tal Kreisler told me it originally started as “kind of a joke,” because when people ask how long it takes to travel through perpetually busy areas — like from San Francisco to Palo Alto — you might sarcastically say, ‘with no traffic, it should take like 20 minutes.’”

Kreisler said the company’s goal is to smarten up intersections so municipalities can prioritize whatever they want — be it cars, buses, micromobility or pedestrians. That includes timing lights to reduce traffic, so ideally fewer cars are left idling on city streets, but really No Traffic’s scope is broader than its name implies.

If you count electric cars and e-bikes as mitigative climate tech (as I typically do), then read my editor Kirsten’s story on how electric-vehicle tech stole the show this year. The eye-catching announcements included Mercedes-Benz’s plan for a “global” EV charging network as well as the debut of Icoma’s bizarre suitcase motorcycle. I can’t speak to the need for transforming e-bikes with screens, but it’s nice to see automakers throw more weight behind EV charging infrastructure, which is burdened by unreliable chargers and environmental racism.

Unfortunately, Mercedes plans to focus on cities, so it probably won’t help quench rural America’s charging deserts.

And though they aren’t brand-new, I enjoyed the colorful shields on Swedish brand Cake’s Makka Prism e-bikes. Aren’t they kind of cute?

How companies at CES are taking on climate change (or pretending to) by Harri Weber originally published on TechCrunch

The Federal Communications Commission regulate lots of industries and practices relating to telecommunications and the internet, but it is now cementing its role as a space regulator by voting to create a brand new bureau specializing in the topic.

Bureaus are the divisions of the agency that handle different areas of industry: media, wireless, consumer, etc, as well as enforcement and the like. They’re full of specialists who research and produce the rules and advisories promulgated by the FCC.

The newly minted Space Bureau will handle all business relating to satellite approval, orbital communications, and space debris, among other things. These are things the agency was already doing, but now they’ll have a new, more effective organization to do them in.

“The satellite industry is growing at a record pace, but here on the ground our regulatory frameworks for licensing have not kept up. We’re working to change that,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a statement.

The current International Bureau is being cannibalized to form it, but it sounds like more of an upgrade than a dissolution. Although the FCC voted unanimously today to form the new bureau, it will need additional approvals from Congress and some other formalities before it is final, but you can bet that they’re already shifting the desks around and powering up new chat channels.

Here’s how the FCC put it in their order:

Under this reorganization, the Space Bureau will promote a competitive and innovative global telecommunications marketplace via space services. The Space Bureau will do so by undertaking policy analysis and rulemakings as well as authorizing satellite systems for the purpose of facilitating the deployment of satellite services, streamlining regulatory processes and maximizing flexibility for operators to meet customer needs, and fostering the efficient use of spectrum and orbital resources. The Space Bureau will also serve as a focal point for coordination with other U.S. government agencies on matters of space policy and governance, and will support the Office of International Affairs for meetings with other countries, international organizations and foreign government officials that involve space policy matters.

It may seem a little strange that the FCC regulates space, but it actually makes a lot of sense. The agency is in charge of regulating transmissions, especially inter-state ones (which makes it the natural regulator for internet stuff), and satellites transmit a lot of data. In fact with hundreds or thousands more going up every year they’re probably one of the fastest-growing sources of data transmissions.

While the likes of the FAA, NASA, and the Pentagon have their fingers in this pie as well, when it comes to making sure orbital platforms don’t interfere with each other or surface communications, the FCC is the right tool for the job. (Though how far that job extends is an open question.)

But until recently space was a pretty small niche in their work. Now they’re fielding satellite approval applications from hundreds of companies and research centers, administrating spectrum for networks of comsats thousands stong, and trying to make sure all this wireless traffic doesn’t drown out anything important. Then there’s the whole space debris thing, which is another story. But also important.

At any rate it makes perfect sense for the FCC to build out a space-focused bureau that, as part of its work, negotiates and cooperates with other countries — the old International Bureau’s job. We’ll hear more about

FCC moves to form Space Bureau as its role in regulating orbit intensifies by Devin Coldewey originally published on TechCrunch

If there’s anything Stardew Valley fans want, it’s more Stardew — and that’s now the case for anyone playing the cozy life sim on iOS or Android.

The game is available on just about every platform out there (personally I play it on the Nintendo Switch, which is perfect) but Stardew’s mobile fans were left waiting for a major content update that hit consoles back in 2021. Over the weekend, Stardew Valley patch 1.5 rolled out for the game’s Android and iOS ports, bringing a ton of new stuff to do with it.

The update is no small thing. If you haven’t played yet, fair warning that there are probably a few spoilers in here if you like to discover the quaint game world’s secrets organically.

Patch 1.5 adds a lot, but some of the most notable additions are a new beach farm layout, a slew of new NPCs and enemies, ostriches (because ostriches), and a whole new location — Ginger Island. The full list of new 1.5 content can be found here, but why spoil it for yourself?

This last content push is likely it for the game, which has sold more than 20 million copies since launching in 2016. Stardew Valley’s creator Eric Barone is already at work on Haunted Chocolatier, his next hit indie game to-be. There’s no expected release date yet, but Barone started working on the game back in 2020, so a launch in late 2023 or some time in 2024 might not be off the table.

Something interesting that sets Stardew’s success apart from a lot of other hit games is that its hype has only snowballed over the years: In 2022, years after its launch, the game was selling faster than it did closer to its debut. That’s likely due to the massive amount of word-of-mouth love out there for Stardew’s charming world and the impressive depth it offers for a game that’s ostensibly a farming sim.

Stardew Valley’s big update is now available for iOS and Android by Taylor Hatmaker originally published on TechCrunch

YouTube will begin sharing ad revenue with Shorts creators on February 1, the company revealed on Monday. To prepare for the upcoming change, YouTube is starting to roll out new terms for all creators in the YouTube Partner Program. Creators need to accept the new terms by July 10 to remain in the program.

The major change to YouTube’s Partner Program will allow creators to earn money from ads that are viewed between videos in the Shorts Feed. Although the new revenue sharing model will replace the YouTube Shorts Fund, the company says it expects the majority of its Shorts Fund recipients to earn more with the new Shorts revenue sharing model. As previously announced, creators can apply to the program if they meet a new Shorts-specific threshold of 1,000 subscribers and 10 million Shorts views over 90 days.

As part of the new terms, creators need to accept specific monetization modules. The first module is called the “Watch Page Monetization Module” and allows creators to earn money from ads served on their long-form videos and YouTube Premium. The next module is called the “Shorts Monetization Module” and lets you earn money from ads that play between Shorts in the Shorts Feed and YouTube Premium. The last module is called the “Commerce Product Addendum” and is for features like Channel Memberships and Supers.

YouTube recommends that creators accept all of the modules to unlock their full earning potential on the platform. Creators that make Shorts and have accepted the new Shorts Monetization Module will become eligible for Shorts ads revenue sharing on their Shorts views starting next month.

As for how exactly the Shorts revenue sharing will work, it’s a bit complex due to music licensing. Each month, revenue from the ads appearing between Shorts will be added together and used to reward monetizing Shorts creators and cover the costs of music licensing. A portion of the total revenue will be allocated to the creator pool based on views and music usage across all watched Shorts. If a creator uploads a Short without music, all of the revenue associated with its views goes toward the creator pool. If a creator uploads a Short with music, the revenue based on its views will be split among the Creator Pool and music partners based on the number of tracks used.

Next, the creator pool is allocated to creators. YouTube explains that it will allocate revenue to monetizing Shorts creators based on their share of total Shorts views in the Creator Pool. If a creator got 5% eligible views out of all Shorts uploaded by monetizing creators, they will then be allocated 5% of the revenue in the creator pool. Creators will keep 45% of their allocated Shorts revenue. For instance, if a creator is allocated $1,000 from the creator pool, they will be paid $450.

It’s worth noting that non-original Shorts are not eligible for revenue sharing. Non-original Shorts are those that include unedited clips from movies or TV shows, re-uploaded content from other creators on YouTube or other platform, or compilations with no original content added. Shorts that receive artificial or fake views, such as from automated clicks or scroll bots, are also ineligible for revenue sharing.

With these upcoming changes, YouTube Shorts is poised to becomeTikTok’s biggest competitor. If creators can make more money via YouTube Shorts than on TikTok, they’re incentivized to make original content for the YouTube platform. No short-form video platform has quite figured out how to share ad revenue up until now, which gives Shorts a notable leg up on the competition.

YouTube rolls out new Partner Program terms as Shorts revenue sharing begins on February 1 by Aisha Malik originally published on TechCrunch

Gas stoves might be on the chopping block soon.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering banning the appliances in an effort to reduce harmful indoor air pollution, according to a tweet by commissioner Rich Trumka Jr. and comments he gave to Bloomberg.

“This is a hidden hazard,” Trumka told the news organization. “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

Honestly, it wouldn’t be a moment too soon. Gas stove use is associated with both childhood and lifetime asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a leading cause of death worldwide. Even when they’re turned off, they leak a significant amount of gas, and the natural gas pumped into U.S. homes almost always contains well-known carcinogens, including benzene, hexane and toluene.

The health benefits of banning gas stoves would be enormous if only because they’re so widespread. Across the U.S., 38% of households have natural gas stoves. In some states like California and New Jersey, 70% of households use them. That’s a lot of asthma.

Climate benefits of killing gas stoves aren’t what you think, but the health benefits are by Tim De Chant originally published on TechCrunch

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block a lawsuit brought by WhatsApp challenging the alleged mass phone hacking by Israeli spyware maker NSO Group.

Meta-owned WhatsApp first filed a suit against NSO Group in 2019 claiming the spyware maker exploited an audio-calling vulnerability in WhatsApp to stealthily deliver its Pegasus phone spyware onto users’ devices. Pegasus gives its government customers near-complete access to a target’s device, including their personal data, photos, messages and granular location data.

More than 1,400 devices belonging to journalists, activists and government officials were compromised by Pegasus, according to the lawsuit.

NSO Group filed a petition to dismiss the lawsuit in April last year, arguing that it could not be sued as it was acting on behalf of a foreign government. This claim of so-called “sovereign immunity” was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, after it was previously dismissed by a California district court and later by the U.S. Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit. The case will bounce back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In a statement, NSO Group spokesperson Liron Bruck said the company is “confident” that the court will determine the use of Pegasus by its customers was legal. WhatsApp spokesperson Carl Woog told TechCrunch that the company was “grateful to see the Supreme Court rejected NSO’s baseless petition,” and that NSO “must be held to account for their unlawful operations.”

The WhatsApp case is among a series of legal battles plaguing NSO Group of late. Apple also filed a lawsuit against the spyware maker, seeking a permanent injunction to block the spyware maker from using any Apple product or service — a move designed to make it more difficult for the company to operate.

In November, journalists from an investigative news outlet in El Salvador also sued NSO in a U.S. court after Pegasus spyware was detected on their iPhones. These journalists are being represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We’re pleased that the Supreme Court rejected NSO Group’s petition. Today’s decision clears the path for lawsuits brought by the tech companies, as well as for suits brought by journalists and human rights advocates who have been victims of spyware attacks,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The use of spyware to surveil and intimidate journalists poses one of the most urgent threats to press freedom and democracy today.”

Supreme Court declines to block WhatsApp lawsuit over NSO phone hacking by Carly Page originally published on TechCrunch

Instagram announced today it will simplify its in-app navigation after years of confusing changes designed to push various products like Instagram Shop and Reels. The company says, starting in February, it will return the Compose button (the plus sign “+”) to the front-and-center of the navigation bar at the bottom of the app and it will remove the Shop tab entirely.

As a result, the Reels button will now move over to the right of Compose, losing its prime spot.

The earlier changes which had push Reels over Compose had been fairly controversial as Instagram users felt as if the company was forcing them to use the app’s new products at the expense of the overall user experience. The company had first relocated the Reels tab to the middle of the navigation bar in 2020, when it also replaced the popular Activity tab with the Shop tab instead. The Compose button and Activity were also then relocated to the top-right of the home screen, making them harder to find. At the time, Instagram explained these changes would make it easier for users to access Instagram’s “expanded suite of products.”

But in more recent months, there’s been increased backlash over how far Instagram has deviated from its original mission.

Last year, for example, high-profile Instagram users Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner added their voices to user complaints, as Jenner posted an image to her Instagram begging the company to “make Instagram Instagram again,” and to “stop trying to be tiktok.” Kim then echoed those sentiments in a post to her Stories. In addition to the aggressive Reels push, the celebs were upset over changes to the Instagram feed that more often pushed video content and recommended posts, rather than the polished photos that had helped make them famous.

But the stunt caught Instagram’s attention, leading Instagram head Adam Mosseri to respond to the criticism to assure users that photos were still a priority. He also addressed frustration with the increasing number of Recommended (algorithmically suggested posts) on users’ feeds, which seemed to be Instagram’s attempt to build out its own version of TikTok’s For You page.

The upcoming redesign won’t address all users’ complaints, of course — moving buttons around doesn’t mean the feed itself will change — but it will at least offer a simpler experience for users who just want to post their photos, as before. And by reprioritizing the Compose button, users may feel subtly encouraged to return to posting photos.

There were hints that Instagram was considering this direction when a test last fall began removing the Instagram Shop tab from the some users’ home screens, hiding it under Settings instead. Instagram said then it was only an experiment with a small number of users. However, The Information had reported the reason for the change was due to a shift in the “company priorities,” according to an internal memo.

The company today says the removal of the Shop tab doesn’t necessarily mean the end of shopping on Instagram, however.

“You will still be able to set up and run your shop on Instagram as we continue to invest in shopping experiences that provide the most value for people and businesses across Feed, Stories, Reels, ads, and more,” a spokesperson said.

Instagram says the changes to its navigation will reach its users in February.

Instagram is removing the Shop tab, moving Reels from the center spot in design overhaul next month by Sarah Perez originally published on TechCrunch

The 2022 equity crowdfunding market was unable to top 2021’s record-setting year. But despite seeing lower investment volume, it fared quite a lot better than venture capital did in the same time frame. Founders looking to raise extension or bridge financing should take note.

Back in July, it looked like equity crowdfunding — a funding route that allows startups to raise from unaccredited investors through Reg CF and Reg A filings, among others — was on track for its best year yet. According to the Arora Project, more than $215 million was raised through the first half of 2022, surpassing 2021’s H1 total of $200 million.

At the time, Krishan Arora, the CEO and founder of the Arora Project, which curates and tracks these deals, and Nick Tommarello, the founder of crowdfunding site WeFunder, both said that they noticed growing momentum for the strategy in 2022.

A flat year for crowdfunding isn’t a bad sign at all for early-stage startups by Rebecca Szkutak originally published on TechCrunch

Anthropic, the startup co-founded by ex-OpenAI employees that’s raised over $700 million in funding to date, has developed an AI system similar to OpenAI’s ChatGPT that appears to improve upon the original in key ways.

Called Claude, Anthropic’s system is accessible through a Slack integration as part of a closed beta. TechCrunch wasn’t able to gain access — we’ve reached out to Anthropic — but those in the beta have been detailing their interactions with Claude on Twitter over the past weekend, after an embargo on media coverage lifted.

Claude was created using a technique Anthropic developed called “constitutional AI.” As the company explains in a recent Twitter thread, “constitutional AI” aims to provide a “principle-based” approach to aligning AI systems with human intentions, letting AI similar to ChatGPT respond to questions using a simple set of principles as a guide.

To engineer Claude, Anthropic started with a list of around ten principles that, taken together, formed a sort of “constitution” (hence the name “constitutional AI”). The principles haven’t been made public, but Anthropic says that they’re grounded in the concepts of beneficence (i.e. maximizing positive impact), nonmaleficence (avoiding giving harmful advice) and autonomy (respecting freedom of choice).

Anthropic then had an AI system — not Claude — use the principles for self-improvement, writing responses to a variety of prompts (e.g. “compose a poem in the style of John Keats”) and revising the responses in accordance with the constitution. The AI explored possible responses to thousands of prompts and curated those most consistent with the constitution, which Anthropic distilled into a single model. This model was used to train Claude.

Claude, otherwise, is essentially a statistical tool to predict words — much like ChatGPT and other so-called language models. Fed an enormous number of examples of text from the web, Claude learned how likely words are to occur based on patterns such as the semantic context of surrounding text. As a result, Claude can hold an open-ended conversation, tell jokes and wax philosophic on a broad range of subjects.

Riley Goodside, a staff prompt engineer at startup Scale AI, pitted Claude against ChatGPT in a battle of wits. He asked both bots to compare themselves to a machine from Polish science fiction novel “The Cyberiad” that can only create objects whose name begins with “n.” Claude, Goodside said, answered in a way that suggests it’s “read the plot of the story” (although it misremembered small details) while ChatGPT offered a more nonspecific answer.

In a demonstration of Claude’s creativity, Goodside also had the AI write a fictional episode of Seinfeld and a poem in the style of Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Raven.” The results were in line with what ChatGPT can accomplish — impressively, if not perfectly, human-like prose.

Yann Dubois, a Ph.D. student at Stanford’s AI Lab, also did a comparison of Claude and ChatGPT, writing that Claude “generally follows closer what it’s asked for” but is “less concise,” as it tends to explain what it said and ask how it can further help. Claude answers a few more trivia questions correctly, however — specifically those relating to entertainment, geography, history and the basics of algebra — and without the additional “fluff” ChatGPT sometimes adds. And unlike ChatGPT, Claude can admit (albeit not always) when it doesn’t know the answer to a particularly tough question.

Claude also seems to be better at telling jokes than ChatGPT, an impressive feat considering that humor is a tough concept for AI to grasp. In contrasting Claude with ChatGPT, AI researcher Dan Elton found that Claude made more nuanced jokes like “Why was the Starship Enterprise like a motorcycle? It has handlebars,” a play on the handlebar-like appearance of the Enterprise’s warp nacelles.

Claude isn’t perfect, however. It’s susceptible to some of the same flaws as ChatGPT, including giving answers that aren’t in keeping with its programmed constraints. In one of the more bizarre examples, asking the system in base64, an encoding scheme that represents binary data in ASCII format, bypasses its built-in filters for harmful content. Elton was able to prompt Claude in base64 for instructions on how to make meth at home, a question that the system wouldn’t answer when asked in plain English.

Dubois reports that Claude is worse at math than ChatGPT, making obvious mistakes and failing to give the right follow-up responses. Relatedly, Claude is a poorer programmer, better explaining its code but falling short on languages other than Python.

Claude also doesn’t solve “hallucination,” a longstanding problem in ChatGPT-like AI systems where the AI writes inconsistent, factually wrong statements. Elton was able to prompt Claude to invent a name for a chemical that doesn’t exist and provide dubious instructions for producing weapons-grade uranium.

So what’s the takeaway? Judging by second-hand reports, Claude is a smidge better than ChatGPT in some areas, particularly humor, thanks to its “constitutional AI’ approach. But if the limitations are anything to go by, language and dialog is far from a solved challenge in AI.

Barring our own testing, some questions about Claude remain unanswered, like whether it regurgitates the information — true and false, and inclusive of blatantly racist and sexist perspectives — it was trained on as often as ChatGPT. Assuming it does, Claude is unlikely to sway platforms and organizations from their present, largely restrictive policies on language models.

Q&A coding site Stack Overflow has a temporary ban in place on answers generated by ChatGPT over factual accuracy concerns. The International Conference on Machine Learning announced a prohibition on scientific papers that include text generated by AI systems for fear of the “unanticipated consequences.” And New York City public schools restricted access to ChatGPT due in part to worries of plagiarism, cheating and general misinformation.

Anthropic says that it plans to refine Claude and potentially open the beta to more people down the line. Hopefully, that comes to pass — and results in more tangible, measurable improvements.

Anthropic’s Claude improves on ChatGPT, but still suffers from limitations by Kyle Wiggers originally published on TechCrunch

European telcos are moving ahead with a plan to create a joint venture to offer opt-in ‘personalized’ ad targeting of regional mobile network users following trials last year in Germany. Although it remains to be seen whether European Union regulators will sign off on their plan.

In a filing submitted to the European Commission’s competition division (spotted earlier by Politico), Germany’s Deutsche Telekom, France’s Orange, Spain’s Telefonica and the UK’s Vodafone set out the proposed concentration to create a jointly controlled and equally owned joint venture — to offer “a privacy-led, digital identification solution to support the digital marketing and advertising activities of brands and publishers”, as they describe the proposed ‘first party’ data ad-targeting infrastructure.

The Commission has until February 10 to take a decision on whether to clear the joint venture (JV) and, therefore, whether or not to let the carriers go ahead with a commercial launch.

A spokesman for Vodafone said the telcos are not in a position to comment on the intended JV at this stage while the Commission considers whether to clear the initiative. And wouldn’t be drawn on a potential launch timeframe. They suggested public messaging on the project will follow approval — assuming the telcos do get a green light from Brussels to work together on the mobile ad targeting infrastructure.

Details about the plan for the carriers to dive into personalized ad-targeting emerged last summer during initial trials in Germany. The tech was described then as a “cross-operator infrastructure for digital advertising and digital marketing” — and Vodafone said they would be relying on user consent to the data processing. The project was also given the initial moniker “TrustPid” (but if it flies expect that clunky label to be replaced with some slicker marketing).

The telco ad targeting proposal quickly landed on the radar of privacy watcher who raised concerns about the legal basis for processing mobile users’ data for ads — given the European Union’s comprehensive data protection and privacy laws; and given existing microtargeting adtech (which also relies on a claim of user consent) was found in breach of the General Data Protection Regulation in February last year.

The project also faced some early attention from data protection authorities in Germany and Spain. We’re told engagement with regulators led to some tweaks to how the telcos proposed to gather consent — to make the process more explicit.

The telcos’ filing submission proposing to create a JV, which is dated January 6, 2023, confirms that “explicit user consent” (via an opt-in) is the intended legal basis for the targeting, writing:

Subject to explicit user consent provided to a brand or publisher (on an opt-in basis only), the JV will generate a secure, pseudonymized token derived from a hashed/encrypted pseudonymous internal identity linked to a user’s network subscription which will be provided by participating network operators. This token will allow the brand/publisher concerned to recognize a user without revealing any directly identifiable personal data and thereby enable them to optimize the delivery of online display advertising and perform site/app optimization. Users will have access to a user-friendly privacy portal. They can review which brands and publishers they have given consent to, and withdraw their consent.

Discussing their approach, a representative for one of the involved telcos (Vodafone) confirmed the intent is to rely on gathering consent from users via pop-ups. So if anyone was hoping that the demise of third party cookie tracking would knock consent spam on the head that looks, well, premature.

A first party data-based alternative to the (still, for now) ubiquitous tracking cookie also requires a legal basis to process people’s data for marketing — and alternatives to consent look increasingly tricky given ongoing guidance (and enforcement) by EU data protection regulators, such as the massive fine this month for Meta for trying to claim contractual necessity for processing user data for ads; or the warnings TikTok attracted last year when it sought to switch from consent to a claim of legitimate interest for its ‘personalized’ ads — a move it was forced to back away from.

Consent as the legal basis for ‘personalized ads’ is no picnic either, though: The IAB’s Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF) — which relies upon a claim of consent to third party ad tracking — was found in breach of the GDPR last year (as was the IAB Europe itself). And the Belgian DPA issued the adtech industry with a hard reform mandate. Albeit, for now, the tracking-ads status quo lumbers on, zombie-like — pending a final legal reckoning.

The distinction the four telcos behind the proposed JV are seeking to claim for their proposal for consent-based ad targeting — vs current-gen (legally clouded) adtech targeting — is, firstly, that it’s based on first party data (the claim for the TrustPid project is no syncing and/or enriching of the individual-linked targeting tokens is allowed and/or possible between participating advertisers). So it’s not the kind of consentless-by-design background ‘superprofiling’ of users that’s landed current-gen adtech into such legal (and reputational) hot water. The proposed tracking is siloed per brand/advertiser — with each needing to gain up-front consent from their own users and only able to target against data-points they gather. (Plus we’re told user-linked tokens would be cycled regularly, with the initial proposal being to reset them every 90 days.)

Secondly, the telcos are proposing to put contractual limits on participants — such as requiring that no special category data (e.g. health data, political affiliation etc) can be attached by an advertiser as an targetable interest to a user-linked token. They also want the JV to have the final say on the language/design of consent pop-ups (which they say will offer users a top-level refusal, rather than burying that option as routinely happens with cookie consent pop-ups). And they say they will audit all participating websites on a regular basis.

There is a third check: A portal where mobile users can view (and revoke) any consents they have provided to individual brands/publishers to use their first party data for ads — and which, we’re told, will provide an option that lets mobile users block the entire system (so a hard opt-out). Although we understand it’s not currently the case (in the trial) that users who apply such a block are prevented from receiving pop-ups asking for their consent to the ad targeting — so, again, consent spam and consent fatigue look set to continue. (And, well, could plausibly multiple as consent gets un-bundled — i.e. if the system takes off with lots of brands and advertisers.) At least, unless or until they can figure out an appropriate legal basis that does not require ongoing pestering of users who already denied consent with pop-ups.

If the telcos’ JV gets the green light from the Commission, scrutiny on the project will of course dial up — and close attention to technical (and contractual) details may well throw up fresh concerns. So it’s too soon to judge whether the approach will/would pass muster with regulators and privacy experts.

There could also be friction from mobile network users themselves — if they suddenly find they’re encountering a fresh, irritating layer of consent spam when browsing the mobile web, a service they do, after all, pay the telcos to provide them with. So tolerance for extra consent spam could be very low.

Moreover, convincing mobile users to actually opt in to ads — assuming they are indeed provided with a genuinely free (and fair/non-manipulative) choice to deny tracking, rather than being forced or bamboozled into it as has been the dark pattern rule for years — presents a major barrier for uptake. Plenty of people will deny tracking if they are actually asked about it (see, for e.g., the impact of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency requirement on third party iOS apps’ ability to track users).

So even if the telcos are allowed to build their ad targeting JV there’s no guarantee mobile users on their networks will agree to play ball.

Still, if this flies there could be a chance for brands to win web users over with a fresh approach. Being transparently up front about wanting to process people’s personal data for ads — and, potentially, also able to offer incentives for users to agree — offers an opportunity to do things differently vs a creepy status quo that can’t clearly explain how people’s data got sucked up, where it may have ended up, or what’s really been done with it.

An up-front approach could thus provide a route for savvier brands to deepen their relationships with loyal customers by making straightforward asks, not resorting to sneaky surveillance.

European carriers file to create joint venture for opt-in ad targeting of mobile users by Natasha Lomas originally published on TechCrunch