The elephant in the UMP room.

[Julian Neil]

The GDPR / UMP implementation discussions in this group go around and around - and frankly are depressing reading. Developers try to satisfy business demands - often of their own business, sometimes for their employer.  Google reps provide canned answers - generally avoiding the specifics of the questions asked - and on the whole without offer any practicable solutions.

Speaking for myself - I'm a developer, not a lawyer. I have no desire to be able to correctly parse a legal document.  I have very little interest in legal basis, legitimate interest and understanding the nuance of legal difference between non-personalised and limited ads.  

I am interested in writing apps, and in monetizing them and clearly the current UMP implementation is frustrating developers. The end user workflows do not provide sensible paths for end users to select minimal app permissions that lead to the various  revenue outcomes: personalized ads; non-personalized ads; and limited ads - whatever that really means.

I suspect that the current implementation is legally driven, not outcome driven.  I get that in some sense Google's hands are tied - their entire business model is threatened by privacy legislation - but that is really Google's fight, not the developers and businesses that actually make money for google via monetization.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but It feels as though Google is trying to enrage developers to further the number of voices railing against privacy regulation.  I don't believe that is in line with the Google motto : "Do the right thing".

Its a long post - but I do have a question - and please try not to respond with the same cookie cutter avoidance.  Can the legal minds and developers at google suggest an implementable workflow (using the existing UMP or ANY tech that integrates with Admob) that is legal under the EU privacy regulations and allows only two possible end outcomes:

1. The user has agreed to advertising in some form. OR
2. The user has paid for an ad free experience.

Currently the UMP only seems to go half way towards 1 - and from the discussions in the group it is very unclear that once consent is not given that 2 can be enforced.

[bellissimo]

I agree with the 'legally driven' implementation. Fines for not complying with privacy policy in the EU can be in the billions of Euros and even for Google that provides a headache. I suspect the strategy is to first achieve a baseline that is definitely compliant, then see how that goes and maybe tweak it from there. 

It also seems that the implementation for mobile is almost 100% based on the way that websites work, but this does not work so well for apps. People visit many websites a day, from one link to another, and are continually bombarded with consent messages. Soon enough we give up and press 'Accept All' for everything. Lots of websites take advantage of this 'consent fatigue' and if they don't get consent they simply ask and ask again until the user gives in. There is no 'rating' for the websites to worry about, so no harm to them in doing this. 

Apps on the other hand are different. They are often a way of making a living for developers, unlike a lot of websites, so developers need to make an income from people using the app. Users generally have a relatively small subset of apps they use regularly, so consent fatigue is not so much of a factor, plus apps are at the mercy of user reviews so can't afford to 'annoy' the user into consenting. The result is that users pay more attention to the less frequent consent requests on mobile devices and it is more likely that consent will be denied and no ads shown, especially once word gets around that this is an easy way to get an ad free experience. This is why an alternative model for apps is required that allows developers to at least have an easy way for the user to choose 'Non-Personalised Ads' if this is what they desire (which it likely will be if the alternative is paying for an upgrade).

With regards to asking a user to pay if they do not consent, I don't see why this would be a legal issue, though not a strategy I would consider as it will inevitable lead to some negative feedback. You have a right to charge for your work, and they always have the 'choice' to not use the app.

[Julian Neil]

bellissimo,

I'm not really after a comparison of web workflows to app worflows.  Or a(nother) discussion on whether it is good that the implementation is driven primarily by legal concerns. I simply want an implementable legal workflow that has the three outcomes I suggested.

[Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor]

Hi,

Thank you for contacting the Mobile Ads SDK Support team.

We regret the inconvenience caused. I understand that your query is related to GDPR/ UMP implementation. Please note that your specific queries related to GDPR/UMP are out of scope for our team. 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._5004Q2p2OIt:ref"

Thanks,
 

Mobile Ads SDK Team

[Alex Cretney]

Great email! Perfectly worded. Unfortunately you got the same response i did. 

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:55:14 AM UTC+1 Julian Neil wrote:

[Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor]

Hi, 

Thank you for your feedback. I would recommend reaching out to the Product Support Team as they are better equipped to address your concern.

Please note that we can only assist with technical queries/concerns related to the Mobile Ads SDK.

 

This message is in relation to case "ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2p2OsU:ref"

Thanks,
 

Mobile Ads SDK Team

[Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor]

Hi,

Thank you for contacting the Mobile Ads SDK Support team.

Could you please specify if you are facing issues related to Google Mobile Ads SDK?

This message is in relation to case "ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2p3TS2:ref"

Thanks,
 

Mobile Ads SDK Team

[Alex Cretney]

Unbelievable...

[Test Dvd]

Alex,

This forum sucks, it's useless. They don't help us.

Just disgusting answers.

The fact is that this is going to be like this, the ads will stop showing because they feel like it.

I think a robot, an AI or something like that should answer because I doubt there are humans with so little brain.

[Mobile Ads SDK Forum Advisor]

Hi,

Thank you for contacting the Mobile Ads SDK Support team.

Could you please specify if you are facing issues related to Google Mobile Ads SDK.

 
This message is in relation to case "ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2p3TS2:ref"