Google’s Covert Campaign: How the Tech Giant Fought California’s Privacy Bill Behind the Scenes
A new bill to empower user privacy faced fierce, unacknowledged opposition from Google, revealing the tech titan’s expanding influence and a shadowy lobbying playbook.
In April, Navah Hopkins, a small business owner based in Rhode Island, received an unexpected appeal thousands of miles away from her home. The message, from Google, the developer of the ubiquitous Chrome web browser, urged her and other entrepreneurs on a specialized email list to sign a petition. The target: California’s Assembly Bill 566 (AB 566), a proposed privacy law, which Google claimed would “hurt your ability to use online ads to reach customers.”
Hopkins quickly recognized what she described to CalMatters as “intentionally misleading” information. The bill, sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency, aimed to empower users by requiring web browsers to offer an automatic, universal way to opt out of third-party data sharing. This push, emanating from one of the world’s most powerful tech companies, was particularly striking given Google’s complete silence on the bill in public forums. Even Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, the author of AB 566, was unaware of Google’s email campaign until contacted by a reporter.
The Privacy Imperative: AB 566’s Core Objective
At its heart, AB 566 sought to simplify a complex aspect of online privacy. Under California’s 2018 state law, businesses are already mandated to provide customers with a method to forbid the sharing or sale of their personal information. However, this often involves navigating individual website settings. AB 566 proposed a streamlined solution: a browser-level feature that automatically sends an opt-out signal to all websites a user visits, similar to privacy controls already offered by browsers like DuckDuckGo, Brave, and Firefox.
Opponents, primarily the California Chamber of Commerce—a group Google has paid significantly to lobby—argued that AB 566 constituted an “onerous mandate” that lacked clarity and was difficult to implement. Ronak Dalami, a chamber lobbyist, contended that browsers already compete effectively on privacy features. This mirrors the arguments used to successfully block a similar bill (AB 3048) last year, which Governor Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed due to concerns about mobile operating system design, rather than consumer data protection.
Google’s Invisible Hand: A Pattern of Covert Influence
Google’s opposition to AB 566 was not just quiet; it was strategically routed through proxy organizations. The petition sent to small businesses was officially from the “Connected Commerce Council” (3C), a lobbying group that lists Google and Amazon as funders and partners. In 2022, 3C controversially claimed to represent 15,000 small businesses, though many listed in its membership directory later told Politico they were not members. Rob Retzlaff, 3C’s executive director, argued the bill would jeopardize small businesses’ success and limit access to online services.
This tactic is part of a broader, well-funded influence campaign. Google ranked among the most active lobbyists in California last year, spending more to influence elected officials than it had in the previous 20 years combined. This year alone, the company has disclosed pouring nearly $700,000 into lobbying state leaders on various bills, including AB 566. Beyond California, Google has significantly increased its lobbying expenditures in numerous other statehouses, as documented by the Open Markets Institute, a reflection of states taking the lead on tech regulation amid congressional inaction.
Despite lobbying on 17 different bills this year, touching on issues from social media warning labels to AI in healthcare, Google publicly stated its position on only one: an online age verification bill. This opacity makes it challenging to trace the full extent of its influence, especially when significant payments, such as the nearly $100,000 to the California Chamber of Commerce and $2,500 to TechNet, are made for general lobbying without specific bill declarations.
Scrutiny and the Ethics of “Shadow Lobbying”
Critics are vocal about these behind-the-scenes maneuvers. Sean McMorris, from California Common Cause, highlighted that such activities exemplify a “skewed playing field,” allowing money to afford privileges that undermine democratic transparency. Brandon Forester of MediaJustice argued that if Google genuinely believes a bill is harmful, its lobbyists should engage publicly, not resort to “shadow lobbying” that serves an “infinite growth model” at the public’s expense.
Bianca Blomquist, California director of the non-profit Small Business Majority, echoed concerns, noting that most small business owners prioritize data privacy over minor interface changes. She characterized Google’s use of partner data for advocacy as “leveraging” and warned that businesses often sign onto legislation without fully understanding its implications.
Jeremy Mack, director of the Phoenix Project, draws parallels to previous tech industry campaigns, such as Uber and Lyft’s mobilization of users against Proposition 22 in California, and Meta’s historical recruitment of small businesses. He also cited Google and Meta’s threats of news blackouts in Australia, Canada, and California to oppose payments for linking to news websites. This strategy, while often effective, is used sparingly because frequent deployment risks exposing the extent of tech companies’ control over user information.
A Bill Amended, A Battle Unresolved
In a testament to the complex legislative process and stakeholder input, AB 566 was amended before its final floor vote. The changes included delaying its effective date until 2027 and adding liability protections for browser companies like Google. Assemblymember Lowenthal stated he took input from “colleagues and stakeholders” to craft the “strongest possible bill,” acknowledging the necessary “give-and-take” given the bill’s prior veto.
The bill has now cleared the Legislature and awaits the governor’s signature. Meanwhile, Google faces broader challenges to its market dominance. A recent judge’s ruling prohibited the company from entering into exclusive distribution deals for Chrome or Google search, and new AI-powered browsers from competitors like OpenAI are emerging, threatening Chrome’s market share.
UCLA sociology professor Edward Walker notes that corporate lobbying campaigns often combine traditional methods with “user mobilization strategies” when core business models are threatened. While powerful, these “grassroots lobbying” efforts are a “double-edged sword” and can backfire if users are not genuinely motivated or if the tactics are perceived as manipulative. The saga of AB 566 underscores the ongoing tension between technological innovation, user privacy, and the formidable influence of tech giants in shaping public policy.
