Google is lobbying behind the scenes in California to preserve its dominance in the online advertising market by influencing policy without revealing its own stance. The tech giant’s quiet campaign provides a window into its strategy of using third-party organizations, like the Connected Commerce Council, to push its agenda. This approach helps Google avoid publicly opposing legislation that aims to protect user privacy. In this specific case, the company emailed small businesses and asked them to sign a petition against Assembly Bill 566, which would require browsers to give users the option to tell websites not to share their data. This tactic is nothing new for Google, which used the same strategy to block similar legislation last year.
Google’s outreach to small business owners like Navah Hopkins was intentionally misleading. The email sent to them from Google claimed that the bill would “hurt your ability to use online ads to reach customers,” which Hopkins said was a misrepresentation of the bill’s effects. The author of the bill, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, was unaware of Google’s email campaign until a reporter informed him. He also stated that his office hadn’t received signatures or outreach from the small business owners Google had contacted. This highlights how Google maintains a low public profile while still working to influence legislation. While the effectiveness of this year’s campaign is yet to be seen, experts warn that this strategy could backfire if the company’s message doesn’t resonate with the people it reaches.
Even with Google’s quiet lobbying, Assemblymember Lowenthal amended the bill to delay its effective date until 2027 and to add liability protections for browser companies like Google. He noted that shaping the bill into its “strongest possible” form required “some give-and-take.” The bill ultimately passed and was sent to the governor’s desk. This demonstrates how even behind-the-scenes pressure from well-funded interests can influence the legislative process. Google, which spent more on lobbying in California last year than in the previous two decades combined, is known for its extensive efforts to influence policy. The company has also increased its lobbying spending in other states as statehouses take the lead on tech regulation in the absence of federal action.
Critics argue that Google’s lobbying tactics, while not illegal, highlight the disproportionate influence of money on policy. The company’s practice of paying groups to influence legislators on its behalf makes it difficult to trace the full extent of its sway. For example, Google registered to lobby on 17 bills this year but only publicly stated its position on one. Critics like Sean McMorris of California Common Cause and Brandon Forester of MediaJustice argue that this type of activity creates a skewed playing field. They believe that if Google genuinely opposes a bill, its lobbyists should testify publicly instead of engaging in “shadow lobbying” that undermines democratic processes and allows the company to pursue its growth model at the expense of the public.
Google’s attempts to protect its control over the online advertising market extend beyond this one bill. The company also faces other threats to its dominance, including a recent court ruling that prevents it from entering into exclusive deals for Chrome or Google search. Additionally, new AI-powered browsers, including one reportedly from OpenAI, are poised to challenge Chrome’s market share. These developments suggest that Google is fighting on multiple fronts to maintain its grip on how people use the internet.
Reference:
