The IPG emails reveal how an advertising company could use that same personal data and targeting capabilities to undermine a public policy proposal that threatens its bottom line.
The emails show an exchange between the company’s global chief digital responsibility and public policy officer, Sheila Colclasure, and other executives discussing what the firm can do to block the bill.
“We would like to mount an ‘opposition campaign’ using in-house digital advertising capabilities, targeting California,” Colclasure wrote in an Aug.14 email sent to others at IPG and reviewed by POLITICO.
Those capabilities could include creating ads targeted at California residents to foment public opposition to the bill, and prominently placing those ads on popular websites.
In the email exchange, IPG notes it was “pulling out all the stops” to fight the bill. It also said data broker and major credit monitoring agency Experian plans to launch its own attack on the bill this week. The discussion included other IPG executives and Chad Engelgau, CEO of Acxiom, a data broker owned by IPG.
Engelgau in a separate email exchange said Acxiom would provide data to target the ad campaign against SB 362.
Engelgau did not directly respond to questions about the effort, but said in a statement on behalf of IPG, Acxiom and Colclasure that the companies disagree with state regulations and are advocating for a national privacy law. Tech industry groups have been pushing for a federal data privacy law that would overwrite state regulations, saying it would be too hard to abide by different rules in each of the 50 states.
“We are offering our view as subject matter experts to trade organizations and legislative bodies on why this proposal will damage the economy, negatively impacting both small and large businesses, and have asked our industry partners to join the dialogue,” he said. “We will continue our work to help create common sense rules at a federal level.”
Experian spokesperson Jordan Takeyama said that the company is not launching any advertising related to SB 362, but does oppose the legislation.
“We believe the proposed legislation has many unintended consequences and would severely harm the ability for companies to best serve consumers on many levels,” he said.
The IPG campaign already includes a website called NoToSB362.org, which urges visitors to contact Democratic state Sen. Josh Becker, the bill’s main author, and voice opposition to the bill. Concerns on the website include how the ability to delete data en masse would raise health costs and make it difficult for government agencies to detect fraud. There is one mention of the bill’s effects on advertisers, noting that data deletions would hurt small businesses.
The emails obtained by POLITICO note that the Consumer Data Industry Association and the law firm Venable built and sponsored the website, while Interpublic Group worked on the effort to promote the campaign. But the site, which was registered last week, originally did not disclose who was behind it.
And when POLITICO revealed the website’s similarities to an ad industry push on Wednesday, Interpublic Group spokesperson Thomas Cunningham and Acxiom’s Engelgau denied their companies were involved. Engelgau’s statement to POLITICO Thursday did not respond to questions about this discrepancy.
The CDIA has since updated the No to SB 362 website to include the industry’s affiliation.
“We are considering other options as well [as] including ads but have not made a final decision,” Justin Hakes, the CDIA’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in an email. “CDIA will work with policymakers to avoid significant unintended consequences undermining privacy and data security for California consumers.”
Venable, a law firm with a lobbying practice used by tech companies, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
This isn’t the first time a tech platform was accused of using its capabilities in an attempt to sway legislation in California.
In 2020, privacy advocates accused Google of blocking political ads that favored California privacy legislation the company opposed, while approving similar ads against the regulations. Google told California lawmakers in response that it doesn’t insert political bias into its results.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2022 requiring that businesses disclose to the secretary of state if they use their products or services to target online ads for political purposes. But the regulations don’t go into effect until January 2024.
On Thursday, the CDIA, alongside 13 industry trade organizations, including the Association of National Advertisers, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and NetChoice, sent an opposition letter to every member of the California Assembly and Becker.
Collectively, those groups represent companies including Google, Amazon and Meta, owners of Facebook.
Becker said he knew there was an opposition campaign against his bill, but wasn’t aware of who was behind it until this week. He said his staff has met with IPG representatives in the past, who urged him to delay the bill.
He said he has no intention to delay his legislation, and that IPG’s strategy to use its own advertising resources to promote its opposition campaign gave companies an unfair advantage in the political debate.
“They’re able to target individual consumers based on this treasure trove of data that they’ve amassed,” Becker said in an interview. “The fact that they’re using that to lobby against the bill even more highlights the reason for concern here.”
0 Comments