UMP to meet GDPR and IAB TCF 2.2 Appendix B Policy C(h) derogation

[Emmanuel]

Hello and thank you everyone for the robust discussion and help with the new CMP requirements.

Does Google plan to provide a solution in the UMP config/SDK to address section C(h) of appendix B in the TCF specs? (see below)

"h. By way of derogation from Appendix B, Policies C(c)(iii) and (iv) and C(d), a Publisher shall not be required to allow a user to make granular and specific consent or opt-in choices if the Publisher implements a way for the user to access its content without consenting through other means, for example by offering paid access that does not require consenting to any Purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, all other Policies remain applicable."

I'm not a lawyer. Does this authorize a publisher to require that a specific consent be given (for example purpose 1 and Legitimate Interest for 2, 7, 9, 10) when an In-App Purchase is made available to access the relevant content?

If so, does Google have plans to allow publishers to configure a secondary message (ie "Manage Options") to that effect?

I would appreciate clarification from the Mobile Ads SDK team on this topic.

Many thanks,

Emmanuel

[Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor]

Hi Emmanuel,

Thank you for contacting the Mobile Ads SDK support team.

Upon checking, it appears that your concern is more related to the product rather than Mobile Ads SDK implementation. I would recommend reaching out to the Product Support Team as they are better equipped to address your concern.

 

This message is in relation to case "ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2p17Dz:ref"

Thanks,
 

Mobile Ads SDK Team

[Andreas]

@Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor, that is a nonsensical distinction to make.

The "Google User Messaging Platform SDK" is a package within Google's "Mobile Ads SDK" (see here), and the header of this very forum explains that it is, among other things, a "place to report SDK feature requests or bugs / crashes". As such, it is very much within the scope of this forum to ask exactly these types of questions. For what it's worth, we've been doing it for years without you, the rest of your team or whatever LLM is used to actually write the majority of replies ever reypling in an honest and straight-forward way.

As Emmanuel, I am not a lawyer, just a developer who wants fair compensation for my work writing apps. However, even as a non-lawyer, I understand that the quoted part is exactly what we've been asking for multiple times over the last years: give us an option within your UMP SDK that allows us to give our users an easy choice between two options: (A) pay for the app, or (B) allow ads to be displayed, without any option to circumvent that display of ads by mis-configuring details of a secondary or tertiary consent screen.