Google delays cookiepocalypse so third party cookies are here to stay - for now

Barely a week after a landmark US antitrust ruling labelled Google a digital advertising monopolist, the tech titan has quietly pivoted on one of its most controversial strategies: the phasing out of third-party cookies (aka the cookiepocalypse) via its Privacy Sandbox.

Third-party cookies are small pieces of data stored on your device by a website other than the one you’re currently visiting. They’re mainly used for tracking and advertising purposes. The move, while subtle in corporate-speak, is raising eyebrows across the adtech landscape – and it might just be Google blinking under regulatory pressure.

 

Google insists this isn’t a retreat, merely a “maintaining” of the status quo – a phrasing that, in Big Tech speak, sounds suspiciously like “back to the drawing board”. The company announced it would not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies in Chrome, which was a key step in the broader Privacy Sandbox plan. Instead, it will continue nudging users toward enhanced tracking protections in incognito mode and reconsidering how the Sandbox fits into the broader digital ad ecosystem.

The timing, though, is conspicuous.

No more icing over the cracks

This shift arrives in the immediate wake of a crushing US antitrust ruling that labelled Google a digital advertising monopolist. The Department of Justice (DOJ) accused the company of dominating the adtech stack and “harming Google’s publishing customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”

While Google’s official line is that it’s simply responding to “divergent perspectives” from industry stakeholders, the timing has raised some cynical – and probably justified – eyebrows.

Anthony Chavez, Google’s vice president of Privacy Sandbox, spelt it out in detail: “As we’ve engaged with the ecosystem, including publishers, developers, regulators, and the ads industry, it remains clear that there are divergent perspectives on making changes that could impact the availability of third-party cookies. Taking all of these factors into consideration, we’ve made the decision to maintain our current approach… and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies.”

It’s a carefully worded admission that consensus is nowhere in sight – and that Google might not have the political capital right now to bulldoze its way through with major browser-level changes.

Chavez continued: “In light of this update, we understand that the Privacy Sandbox APIs may have a different role to play in supporting the ecosystem. We’ll engage with the industry to gather feedback and share an updated roadmap for these technologies, including our future areas of investment, in the coming months.” An Application Programming Interface (API) is a way for different apps or systems to talk to each other and share data or services.

Translation: Google is not giving up on the Sandbox, but it is definitely not pushing as hard as it was before the courts got involved.

Deep unhappiness in adland

Industry scepticism, however, predates this pause. The IAB Tech Lab’s Anthony Katsur previously described the Sandbox as a “seismic shift” that breaks with two decades of ad infrastructure – and not in a way that’s ready for primetime.

“Chrome is focused on providing discrete components that support aspects of use cases, but which ultimately cannot be assembled into a whole that provides a viable business foundation,” he warned.

And the legal side is even more scathing. Tim Cowen, legal counsel to the Movement for an Open Web, told The Drum that he believed the Sandbox terms would crumble under judicial scrutiny.

“These terms have been imposed at the whim of a monopolist,” he said. “Our analysis suggests that the terms of service… would be found to be unfair and illegal if contested in a court.”

All this casts Google’s shift as less of a technical delay and more of a reputational recalibration.

The empire crumbles

Meanwhile, the DOJ is still swinging. The remedies proposed in court go beyond the sandbox and hit Google at the core of its empire: demands to divest from Chrome, drop exclusive search deals and curtail similar agreements around AI products like Gemini. David Dahlquist from the DOJ didn’t hold back: “We are not here for a Pyrrhic victory. We are here to restore competition.”

Google is, unsurprisingly, fighting back hard. Its legal and regulatory teams describe the proposed remedies as “unprecedented”, “harmful”, and a “wish list for competitors”. VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland warns that forcing browser defaults to Bing would disrupt user preference, damage security and “break” platforms like Chrome and Android.

So, what does this all mean?

Google’s Privacy Sandbox is still on the table, but for now, it’s a slow simmer rather than a hard boil. Whether this softer stance is a strategic retreat or a canny recalibration remains to be seen.

But one thing is certain: as regulators tighten the leash and adtech competitors circle, Google’s cookie plan isn’t crumbling – it’s evolving. DM