COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING REGULATIONS: EU VS. USA

СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ ПРАВИЛ ИНТЕРНЕТ-РЕКЛАМЫ: ЕС И США

Абдукаххарова Зилола

магистрант Ташкентского государственного юридического университета,

Узбекистан, г. Ташкент

ABSTRACT

Online advertising is subject to markedly different regulatory approaches in the European Union (EU) compared to the United States (USA). The EU employs comprehensive data protection laws like GDPR and ePrivacy that centralize control and favor consumer privacy. Meanwhile, the USA exhibits a sectoral, self-regulatory model without overarching data standards. This paper analyzes the frameworks in each region, finding foundations in divergent legal and cultural attitudes. For international advertisers, contradictions between EU restrictions and USA freedoms create compliance challenges. Reconciling these discordant systems remains difficult, as consumers on each continent hold distinct privacy perceptions. Nevertheless, bridging the regulatory gap is imperative to engender common principles of ethical advertising worldwide. Constructive dialogue and cooperation must overcome normative divides to develop shared standards befitting the global digital economy.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В Европейском Союзе (ЕС) по сравнению с Соединенными Штатами (США) к интернет-рекламе применяются совершенно иные нормативные подходы. В ЕС действуют всеобъемлющие законы о защите данных, такие как GDPR и ePrivacy, которые централизуют контроль и способствуют конфиденциальности потребителей. Между тем, США демонстрируют отраслевую модель саморегулирования без всеобъемлющих стандартов данных. В данной статье анализируются структуры в каждом регионе, выявляя основы в различных правовых и культурных подходах. Для международных рекламодателей противоречия между ограничениями ЕС и свободами США создают проблемы с соблюдением требований. Примирить эти противоречивые системы по-прежнему сложно, поскольку потребители на каждом континенте имеют разные представления о конфиденциальности. Тем не менее, устранение нормативного разрыва необходимо для выработки общих принципов этической рекламы во всем мире. Конструктивный диалог и сотрудничество должны преодолеть нормативные разногласия для разработки общих стандартов, соответствующих глобальной цифровой экономике.

Keywords: online advertising, regulation, GDPR, EU, USA

Ключевые слова: интернет-реклама, регулирование, GDPR, ЕС, США.

Introduction

Online advertising now represents a ubiquitous component of the internet economy. However, widely varying regulatory philosophies have emerged between the United States and European Union around privacy and data utilization in digital advertising. The stark contrast creates a disjointed landscape for global companies. In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) along with the ePrivacy Directive institute centralized, comprehensive standards for data processing and consumer consent. This expansive oversight reflects European legal traditions and cultural norms favoring privacy. Meanwhile, the USA lacks omnibus federal privacy laws, instead relying on industry self-regulation and limited sectoral statutes. This fragmented system epitomizes American pro-business values and skepticism of government intervention. For multinational advertisers, adjusting practices across disparate regions with conflicting ideologies proves challenging. Reconciling contradictory online advertising models ultimately requires constructive international cooperation to develop ethically and culturally responsive global standards.

Main analyzes

Regulatory Frameworks: EU vs. USA

EU regulations like GPDR and ePrivacy provide uniformly strict data protection mandates across member states applicable to online advertising. The USA adheres to an amalgam of targeted laws and self-governance. This key divergence of unified oversight versus decentralized pluralism mirrors broader EU and American orientations.

EU: Comprehensive Standards

The EU approach imposes top-down, comprehensive regulation of data utilization and privacy in advertising. GPDR sets baseline standards for EU members, establishing consumer rights around processing consent, access, rectification and erasure. ePrivacy further governs electronic communications, mandating opt-in consent for behavioral ads. Together, these directives enactcontinent-wide principles through authoritative enforcement. This reflects European preference for centralization and uniformity enabled by civil code law traditions (Brandimarte et al., 2012). It also demonstrates higher cultural risk perception, favoring precaution and collective safeguards around new technologies (Veltri & Ivchenko, 2017).

USA: Industry Self-Governance

Contrarily, the American model predominantly relies on industry self-regulation and narrowly-targeted laws varying between states and sectors. The U.S. lacks omnibus federal privacy statutes. Instead, limited protections like COPPA and HIPAA regulate specific areas like children’s online data and health records. Otherwise, individual companies and trade groups institute their own standards per self-regulatory principles valuing flexibility and market-based accountability (Brandimarte et al., 2012). This fragmentation across industries and demographics echoes America’s common law system and libertarian suspicion of overarching regulation, instead stressing corporate responsibility.

Impact on Advertisers and Consumers

For international advertisers, navigating incongruent regulations like GDPR and decentralized US norms poses serious compliance difficulties. Meanwhile, consumer perceptions around data utilization diverge between the regions, informing receptiveness to different models. This produces challenges in tailoring advertising appropriately across markets.

Compliance Challenges

The complex intersection of EU and American regs creates headaches for global advertisers, especially when regulations conflict. Tactics permissible in the USA may violate European standards, and vice versa. For example, GDPR mandates opt-in consent for behavioral targeting, while U.S. firms often infer consent by default. Such discrepancies mean advertisers must mitigate legal risks and tailor regionally specific practices. However, adapting ad delivery systems is costly. And uncertainty around evolving laws remains high. This can disadvantage smaller international players with fewer compliance resources. Data transfer across continents also raises issues, as privacy forms valid in one region may not meet others’ requirements (Tankard, 2016).

Consumer Perceptions

Consumer perceptions around online advertising and privacy markedly differ between the EU and USA as well. Europeans largely embrace stringent protections like GPDR as safeguarding fundamental rights, aligned with risk-averse cultural traits. But Americans harbor more skepticism towards “big government” oversight as infringing on corporate freedom and consumer choice (Brandimarte et al., 2012). These opposing mindsets shape public reception of advertising models. For instance, Europeans may object to behavioral profiling methods more tolerated in America. This creates difficulties gauging appropriate personalization. Bridging expectations presents a key challenge.

Future Outlook and Global Cooperation Needed

Presently, prospects for convergence between European and American online advertising philosophies appear remote, given entrenched normative traditions. However, encouraging constructive international dialogue and ethical common ground may help alleviate conflicts. Both sides must recognize legitimate concerns and cultural contexts across global stakeholders to develop responsive universal guidelines.

Can Disparities Converge?

While current discrepancies in EU and USA regulatory regimes persist, pressures for reconciliation may mount as data flows grow more interconnected. Calls for interoperability to smooth cross-border advertising operations may increase (Tikkinen-Piri et al., 2018). Mutual recognition of adequacy in protections could partially harmonize standards. But fundamental disagreements around centralized authority versus decentralization could still divide approaches. Rather than complete convergence, maintaining distinct regional nuances while increasing compatibility may prove more realistic.

Need for Global Cooperation and Ethics

Ultimately, bridging online advertising regulatory gaps requires nuanced international cooperation accounting for multifaceted cultural worldviews. Seeking globally ethical and inclusive principles that respect both privacy and free enterprise can further collective understanding. Both European and American regulators should emphasize flexibility and good faith efforts at compromise to avoid dogmatic polarization. Companies also need to assess advertising practices against moral standards exceeding legal minimums where possible. Prioritizing consumer transparency and empowerment remains imperative. With collaboration and empathy, balancing legitimate interests across global stakeholders can help the worldwide community progress towards a more ethical advertising ecosystem.

Conclusion

The divergent regulatory frameworks for online advertising between the European Union and United States reflect their broader differences in legal traditions, cultural norms, and values. The EU emphasizes comprehensive centralized oversight and strict consumer privacy protections, while the US favors industry self-governance and targeted sectoral laws. For global advertisers, reconciling these conflicting philosophies poses serious compliance challenges and uncertainties. Contrasting consumer attitudes further complicate effectively tailoring advertising across markets.

While complete convergence of the two regulatory models appears unlikely given their deep-rooted ideological differences, the need for greater compatibility and cooperation grows. Encouraging constructive international dialogue, finding ethical common ground, and mutual recognition of adequacy could help ease conflicts. Both sides must seek flexibility and acknowledge legitimate concerns across global stakeholders. The worldwide community can progress towards a more ethical advertising ecosystem through collaboration and empathy. Global standards that balance privacy rights and free enterprise may develop by prioritizing consumer transparency, choice and empowerment. But this requires nuanced understanding of multifaceted cultural contexts. With good faith efforts, shared moral values can prevail to shape an advertising landscape that serves all.

References:

1. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Misplaced confidences privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340-347.
2. Tankard, C. (2016). What the GDPR means for businesses. Network Security, 2016(6), 5-8.
3. Tikkinen-Piri, C., Rohunen, A., & Markkula, J. (2018). EU General Data Protection Regulation: Changes and implications for personal data collecting companies. Computer law & security review, 34(1), 134-153.
4. Veltri, G. A., & Ivchenko, A. (2017). The impact of information and communication technologies on public relations: Arguments on the basis of authority and morality. Public Relations Inquiry, 6(2), 199-219.