Bill Overview
Title: Banning Surveillance Advertising Act of 2022
Description: This bill restricts online advertising that targets an individual, internet-connected device, or group of individuals or devices based on personal information. Personal information includes information that is reasonably linkable to an individual or connected device such as internet browsing history or the content of communications. The bill generally prohibits (1) online advertisers from using personal information, including personal information that identifies an individual as a member of a specified protected class, to target advertising; and (2) advertising facilitators (i.e., entities that receive compensation for disseminating online advertisements) from using personal information to disseminate targeted advertising or knowingly enabling online advertisers to do so. The bill allows certain exceptions, including for advertisements disseminated based on (1) content with which an individual is engaging, such as search results, if the advertisement is displayed in close proximity to the individual's engagement with the content; or (2) a state, market area, or other geographic location associated with an individual. Furthermore, an advertising facilitator may use information provided by an advertiser or third party if that advertiser or third party also attests in writing that the information complies with the bill's requirements. The bill provides for enforcement of these provisions by the Federal Trade Commission, states, and individuals.
Sponsors: Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18]
Target Audience
Population: Internet users globally
Estimated Size: 310000000
- The bill impacts individuals who use the internet since it restricts how their personal information can be used to target advertisements.
- Online advertising industry professionals, including advertisers and advertising facilitators, will be directly affected by this bill since it changes how they can use personal information.
- The bill would affect internet users' experiences with advertising, as ads will no longer be tailored to personal browsing history or characteristics.
- Companies that rely on targeted advertising may have to change their strategies for reaching customers.
- The bill allows for geographic-based advertising, so it may not impact users who are targeted based on location.
Reasoning
- The population distribution includes a large number of internet users and individuals within the advertising profession, who are highly impacted by this policy.
- Budget constraints require the focus to be on those most affected by the cessation of targeted ads such as those within advertising-dependent sectors and frequent internet users.
- Even though 310 million Americans are internet users, not all of them will experience meaningful change in wellbeing from this policy, hence the sample includes various types of internet users, some of whom might not notice significant differences.
- The advertising industry will need to adapt, potentially impacting small businesses more than larger enterprises due to reliance on targeted ads.
- Some individuals may perceive the change as protective of privacy, potentially improving wellbeing, while others engaged in industries dependent on targeted advertising could see negative impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Digital Marketer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about how this will impact my job since targeted ads are a major portion of our business strategy.
- It's a double-edged sword: while privacy is important, it will take time to adjust marketing strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Targeted advertising is key to reaching my audience cost-effectively. Without it, I fear higher costs and less efficiency in marketing.
- I understand the privacy aspect, but it's going to hit my marketing budget hard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the push for more privacy. However, I'm unsure how it might affect our company's projects.
- I think it's an important step, but there will be significant tech adjustments. Personally, I feel more secure online.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t like how my searches and clicks are tracked, so this seems good for privacy.
- Online ads didn't bother me much, but I guess it's nice to know companies will track me less.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Privacy Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a win for consumer privacy which is crucial in today's digital age.
- I expect improved public trust in internet interactions as personal data misuse decreases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Product Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s going to push innovation in non-intrusive ad targeting which is exciting.
- Short term, it's challenging for our projects focused on personalization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It presents an interesting case for study in how tech companies adapt to privacy legislation.
- I am personally in favor of moves that protect user data more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
IT Consultant (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a business opportunity here in guiding companies through compliance.
- From a user perspective, the impact is small but professionally it's more work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Houston, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My social media ads bring in many clients, so this might change how they perform.
- I'll need to re-evaluate my marketing approach and possibly learn new strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I notice way too many ads following me around online. Less targeted ads seem refreshing.
- I don’t expect drastic changes aside from seeing less creepy ad targeting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $255000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $305000000)
Year 5: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 10: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill will require significant enforcement and compliance mechanisms, impacting both government and industry budgeting.
- Potential job impacts in sectors overly reliant on targeted digital advertising could occur but may be mitigated by shifts to alternative strategies.
- There are also privacy benefits to consider which could have broader societal impacts beyond direct economic metrics.