The Monopoly Report

Ben Isaacson, Founder of InHouse Privacy and longtime privacy attorney, joins the podcast to break down how California’s CPPA is reshaping the data broker landscape. From the DELETE Act and the drop mechanism to the broad definition of “sale” and “direct relationship,” Ben explains why ad tech, retail media, clean rooms, and even auto and smart TV companies may be in scope. He also shares what enforcement could look like in 2026, why smaller brokers may not survive, and the biggest misconception that continues to put companies at risk.

Takeaways

Ben Isaacson's journey into the privacy space began in 1995.

The CCPA and CPRA have significantly influenced privacy regulations in California.

Data brokers are now defined more broadly under California law.

Ad tech companies must navigate complex compliance issues regarding data sharing.

Retail media networks face challenges in adhering to data broker rules.

Authorized agents may struggle with compliance as regulations evolve.

The DELETE Act could lead to increased enforcement actions against data brokers.

Misconceptions about data selling persist among companies.

The future of data broker regulations may see more states adopting similar laws.

Privacy by design is essential for companies to build trust with consumers.

Chapters

00:00 Ben Isaacson’s privacy origin story and early internet lobbying

09:06 How CPPA enforcement is reshaping CCPA and CPRA

12:53 What California’s data broker definition really means

14:37 Why ad tech, DSPs, DMPs, and clean rooms may be in scope

17:42 Retail media networks and off platform monetization risk

26:26 The DELETE Act drop mechanism and 2026 enforcement timeline

29:02 Authorized agents and the rise of deletion services

38:06 The future of the data broker industry

41:15 The biggest misconception companies still believe about selling data
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AI ethicist and governance pro Shoshana Rosenberg joins Alan Chapell to discuss how to build a framework for addressing the legal and regulatory risks involving AI. Given all the new AI and profiling rules flowing down into the ads space in 2026, Shoshana is exactly the person the ads space should be listening to right now.

Pre-order Shoshana’s book “Practical AI Governance” here -

www.practicalaigovernance.com

Check out the Chapell Regulatory Insider here - https://chapellreport.substack.com/ 

Takeaways

AI governance is less about compliance checklists and more about strategic oversight that prevents unseen liability.

Digital agency means giving individuals context and control over how systems influence them.

Post hoc explainability is insufficient because inference-driven systems are fundamentally probabilistic.

Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) can undermine marketplace trust when platforms utilizing PETs aren’t transparent about how they work and don’t allow advertisers to audit them. 

Government procurement standards may drive AI accountability faster than direct regulation.

Building on foundational AI models requires documenting what you add and controlling what you can evidence.

The PRISM framework pushes teams beyond compliance toward structured ethical practice. Too many in the ad space are ignoring data and AI governance to their detriment.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction and defining AI governance

 01:09 Why AI governance is about strategy, not compliance

 02:41 Shoshana’s path from engineer and Navy JAG to AI governance

 05:22 Digital agency as a human right

 09:13 What explainability should look like in advertising

 11:23 The complexity of the ad tech ecosystem

 13:25 Gaps in global AI regulation

 17:06 Procurement and government contracting as enforcement levers

 20:49 The tension between PETs and transparency

 28:02 Agentic AI and worsening accountability gaps

 29:30 Explainability by design by 2029

 31:42 Practical guidance for little tech building with AI

 35:11 The PRISM framework explained

 38:43 Upcoming book and where to find Shoshana
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alan Chapell is joined by Professor Jess Miers, visiting assistant professor of the University of Akron School of Law. Jess and Alan discuss some of the inherent challenges around protecting kids on the internet, and how those challenges are increasingly leading policymakers to age verification as the solution. While Alan is curious to see how this approach plays out in Australia, both Jess and Alan are skeptical that age verification will be good for kids or privacy in general. 

Professor Miers’ Bio: https://www.uakron.edu/law/faculty/directory/profile.dot?u=jmiers 

Chapell Regulatory Insider: https://chapellreport.substack.com/ 

Takeaways

Jess Miers’ career transitioned from policy work to academia, finding a place to express her views freely.

Parents face significant challenges in monitoring their children's online activities.

The impact of social media on youth mental health is complex and multifaceted.

More and more places worldwide are turning to age verification. 

The U.S. legal landscape regarding age verification is evolving and is currently impeded due to First Amendment concerns.

Advertisers must navigate a nebulous landscape regarding content directed at minors.

Data privacy and security concerns are heightened with age verification requirements.

Education of both parents and children is essential in addressing online safety.

While these issues haven’t squarely hit the ad space just yet, Alan thinks that the post-COPPA 1.0 world will hit the ad space hard.

Chapters:

00:01 Welcome + where Jess is calling from 

00:36 Policy to academia + why it fits 

02:07 Viral CA testimony moment 

04:52 What problem age verification is trying to solve 

07:03 Youth harm evidence and why causality is nuanced 

10:27 Australia: under-16 ban and early consequences 

13:54 Europe/UK: “age assurance,” feature limits, and gating 

16:37 US: First Amendment and shifting legal strategies 

22:55 Why age verification is risky: anonymity + data honeypots 

44:28 Where to find Jess + wrap; transcript ends
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alan Chapell is joined by Tom Kemp, the Executive Director of California's privacy regulator CalPrivacy, to discuss the launch of the DROP data deletion mechanism and California’s rules regarding the Global Privacy Control. While complimentary of California's efforts, Alan attempts to uplevel the discussion to talk more broadly about the larger public policy goals driving California's privacy regime.

Tom Kemp's Bio: https://cppa.ca.gov/about_us/

Tom Kemp's Article: https://www.techpolicy.press/lets-make-privacy-easy/

Chapell Regulatory Insider: https://chapellreport.substack.com/

Takeaways

CalPrivacy is the first independent agency focused on consumer privacy.

The DROP system allows Californians to manage their privacy rights easily.

Over 200,000 Californians signed up for the DROP system within a month of launch.

Consumers are increasingly interested in privacy protections.

The agency is addressing privacy harms, especially for vulnerable communities.

Collaboration with other states is on the table a priority for CalPrivacy - particularly re: the DROP.

Transparency in data practices is essential for consumer trust.

The agency aims to balance innovation with privacy regulations.

Authorized agents play a crucial role in helping consumers exercise their rights.

Future regulations will focus on reducing friction for consumers. 

Alan shares his thoughts on how CalPrivacy can better align its stated policy goals with outcomes

Chapters

00:01 Intro and where Tom is calling from

01:04 What CalPrivacy is and Tom’s role

03:33 Why he took the job and his background

06:18 What’s still on the roadmap from “Let’s Make Privacy Easy”

08:18 What DROP is and how it works

11:05 Early adoption: 200,000+ signups

14:26 Privacy paradox and why “making it easy” matters

17:39 Other states showing interest in a DELETE Act model

20:41 Whether DROP could expand beyond California

23:04 Privacy harms and enforcement focus areas

31:14 Opt out preference signals (GPC/OOPS) and how they fit

37:11 Browser conflicts of interest and potential OOPS regs

41:23 Authorized agents and possible additional regulation

45:57 Defining “data broker” and who must register

54:57 Where to find CalPrivacy resources and closing
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Brendan Benedict joins Alan Chapell to talk about some of the recent civil antitrust complaints filed against Google by publishers including Penske, The Atlantic, McClatchy, Conde Nast, and Vox Media. With Judge Brinkema's remedies decision pending and a slew of other jurisdictions (e.g., EU, Canada) attempting to remedy Google's adtech practices, why are so many publishers and adtech companies jumping into the pool?

Brendan Benedict may be found at: https://www.benedictlawgroup.com/brendan-benedict 

The Chapell Regulatory Insider is available at: https://chapellreport.substack.com/

Takeaways

The DOJ ruling gives private plaintiffs a head start on liability.

These cases will mostly come down to damages calculations.

Google avoided a jury, but the detailed opinion may make appeals harder.

Remedies are likely behavioral, not divestiture.

Statute of limitations could decide how far back damages go.

Chapters

00:00 Intro & Guest Welcome

02:20 DOJ Remedies Decision Still Pending

06:20 Overview of Private Civil Lawsuits Against Google

07:05 Publisher Allegations

08:30 Damages Scale Discussion

10:05 DOJ Heavy Lifting for Private Plaintiffs

13:00 Case Consolidation & MDL Structure

15:25 Google Appeal Strategy

19:05 Duke Energy & “Monopoly Broth” Issue

21:45 Jury Trial Avoidance and Implications

23:45 Texas AG Case Expansion

26:00 Europe and Divestiture Pressure

29:05 Calculating Lost Revenue Damages

31:10 Statute of Limitations Debate

33:05 Settlement Likelihood & Bellwether Trials

39:20 FTC Meta Appeal Sidebar

48:10 Final Takeaways Summary

52:15 Closing & Upcoming Guest Preview
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices