Google Faces Criticism for Fighting Privacy Bill

`A number of advertisers have voiced their opposition to Google’s recent campaign against California’s proposed privacy legislation, arguing that businesses should focus on building trust-based, consent-led relationships with their customers.

Google has come under fire for contacting small business owners via email, urging them to oppose Assembly Bill 566—a bill that aims to enhance consumer privacy protections within the digital advertising space.

The tech giant’s outreach effort involves encouraging recipients to sign a letter by the Connected Commerce Council, lobbying against the proposed legislation. However, this move has stirred backlash among marketing professionals, several of whom have taken to LinkedIn to publicly express their disapproval of Google’s tactics.

This controversy sheds light on the growing friction between major digital advertising platforms and privacy advocates, especially as California lawmakers consider stricter rules around data collection and user consent.

If passed, AB 566 would compel browsers and mobile operating systems to include a built-in feature that enables users to opt out of data collection more easily—a step viewed as a win for consumer rights.

Navah Hopkins, a brand evangelist at Optmyzr, was among those who rejected Google’s appeal. In a LinkedIn post, she voiced her support for the bill and stated that businesses should prioritise transparency and user choice over unrestricted access to personal data.

Hopkins described the campaign as spreading “political misinformation,” and insisted that marketers can still succeed without relying on flawless datasets. She added, “We deserve the right to opt out of sharing our information,” calling for a shift towards more ethical marketing practices

Concerns continue to rise among advertisers in response to Google’s campaign opposing California Assembly Bill 566. The bill, which aims to bolster consumer privacy rights within the digital advertising landscape, has drawn sharp criticism for Google’s attempt to rally small businesses against it. Many industry professionals believe the tech giant is prioritising its own interests over those of consumers and businesses alike.

Google recently launched a targeted outreach campaign, sending emails to small business owners and encouraging them to sign a letter from the Connected Commerce Council opposing the bill. This strategy has not been well received by many within the marketing and advertising communities, with several professionals publicly voicing their disapproval of Google’s approach and message.

One of the most vocal critics is Navah Hopkins, brand evangelist for Optmyzr, who expressed her discontent in a widely shared LinkedIn post. Hopkins argued that businesses should be fostering consent-driven relationships with their customers, instead of assuming the right to collect and use data without clear agreement. She firmly supported AB 566 and denounced Google’s messaging as misleading and politically manipulative.

Hopkins’s stance resonated with many in the industry who are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of transparency in data collection practices. She pointed out that consumers deserve the right to opt out of having their personal data shared and that marketers should be prepared to work effectively even with limited data access. Her post underscored a growing call for ethical, consent-based advertising practices.

Joining the chorus of disapproval was performance marketer Louis Halton Davies. He criticised what he described as Google’s tendency to “stack the chips” in its favour when it comes to data consent and privacy regulations. Davies noted that while Google benefits significantly from having access to consented data, the burdens of navigating unclear policies often fall on small and medium-sized businesses.

Julie Friedman Bacchini, a lead generation specialist, also weighed in, echoing the view that companies should only use customer data with express permission. Bacchini argued that most consumers are unaware of how their data is used, and if they were better informed, they would likely choose to withhold it. She pointed out that many people would not be comfortable with their information being uploaded to ad platforms like Google Ads.

Bacchini further accused Google of astroturfing — a practice where organisations mask their efforts to influence opinion by making them appear grassroots-driven. She stressed that the argument that users don’t object to data use is flawed because the public is often unaware of the extent to which their personal information is shared and repurposed.

In defence of its stance, Google’s outreach campaign stated that similar legislation had been vetoed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in the past. The company also argued that AB 566 could introduce “new and untested technology” that might confuse users rather than protect them, suggesting that the bill could create unintended complications for businesses and consumers alike.

Additionally, Google claimed that the bill would lead to wasted advertising spend by requiring companies to serve ads to individuals who may be geographically irrelevant or not actively in the market for their products. This, they argued, would undermine the efficiency of targeted advertising and negatively affect return on investment for small businesses.

As pressure mounts, how Google chooses to respond to the backlash may indicate how it intends to handle similar privacy regulations in other states or countries. The company finds itself in a delicate balancing act — trying to maintain its advertising dominance while addressing growing concerns around user privacy and data ethics. The industry will be watching closely to see if Google adapts its practices or continues to resist reforms aimed at greater transparency.