Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article.
“The consequence was that just hours after the law’s enforcement, numerous independent ad exchanges and other vendors watched their ad demand volumes drop between 20 and 40 percent. But with agencies free to still buy demand on Google’s marketplace, demand on AdX spiked. The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors.” (Digiday)
Having the intention to harm US companies and while implementing it actually benefiting them is not mutually exclusive.
Political motivations will be complex for anything with as wide impact and as complex as GDPR.
The perception that the US tech companies should be affected the most was certainly factored in during the political process involving thousands of people. It's debatable how small or great impact this had, not whether there was any.
> Pretty funny argument given that the big US companies are benefiting the most from it according to the article.
That would be the "unintended" part.
Only the ginormous companies can spend thousands of human hours on compliance while their smaller competitors either leave the market or get steamrolled due to the compliance costs. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again...
“The consequence was that just hours after the law’s enforcement, numerous independent ad exchanges and other vendors watched their ad demand volumes drop between 20 and 40 percent. But with agencies free to still buy demand on Google’s marketplace, demand on AdX spiked. The fact that Google’s compliance strategy has ended up hurting its competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech vendors.” (Digiday)