The Monopoly Report

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

David LeDuc from the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) sits down with host Alan Chapell to discuss the NAI's reinvention of its self-regulatory efforts in light of the influx of U.S. state privacy laws. They discuss what a good privacy law looks like, the challenges around finding the right balance, California's new Deletion tool, and the likelihood of a U.S. federal privacy law in the near term.

More on David LeDuc and the NAI at https://thenai.org/about-the-nai-2/staff/

More on the Chapell Regulatory Insider at https://chapellreport.substack.com/

Takeaways

The NAI has shifted from crafting self-regulatory rules to helping companies comply with complex state and federal privacy laws as enforcement accelerates.

The California Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) is likely the most impactful regulatory development for the ad space heading into 2026.

Lumping third-party ad tech companies together with traditional data brokers may create regulatory confusion.

Kids’ privacy is rapidly expanding beyond COPPA, creating major challenges for ad tech companies aound compliance given that most have no idea how to ascertain the age of a User.

Enforcement sophistication and coordination among state attorneys general are increasing, changing the risk profile for companies that try to “keep their heads down” and do the minimum.

Attempts to regulate AI indirectly through privacy and consumer protection laws are likely to continue as federal leadership stalls.

Chapters

00:00 Welcome and episode overview

02:23 Who is David LeDuc and what is the NAI today

06:00 Are lobbyists really the problem

09:40 Kids’ data, age verification, and policy tensions

13:06 Educating regulators vs legislators

18:04 Ad tech vs data brokers

21:10 What does a “perfect” privacy law look like

30:27 California’s Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform

35:40 Global Privacy Control and browser obligations

39:25 AI regulation through privacy and consumer protection laws

44:20 Predictions for 2026

50:21 Where to find David and the NAI

52:10 – Final wrap-up

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alan Chapell is joined by Dr. Travis Hall - Director for State Engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a nonpartisan organization focused on civil rights and liberties in the digital age. They talk about the ads space through a lens balancing consumer expectations with business interests and debate the merits of the private right of action.

Travis Hall’s bio is available at https://cdt.org/staff/travis-hall/ 

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

Takeaways:

CDT focuses on a broad range of digital rights, not just privacy.

Data minimization is essential for effective privacy laws.

Consumer expectations often differ from actual online behavior.

State privacy laws need strong enforcement mechanisms.

The private right of action can drive regulatory change.

Targeted advertising is an area of continued focus.

Understanding technology is crucial for effective policymaking.

Advocacy must balance user rights with industry needs.

Collaboration between stakeholders is vital for progress.

Historical context shapes current privacy advocacy efforts.

Chapter:

00:00 Introduction and Personal Insights

01:18 Understanding the Center for Democracy and Technology

04:33 The Role of CDT in State Privacy Legislation

10:20 Consumer Expectations and Privacy Law

16:11 Elements of Effective State Privacy Laws

21:26 Challenges in Data Minimization Enforcement

24:27 The Impact of GDPR on Ad Tech

26:22 Enforcement Challenges in Digital Media

30:22 The Role of Private Right of Action

38:52 Improving Targeted Advertising Practices

46:02 Acknowledging the Tension in Data Practices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices