Britain says Google's online-ad commitments no longer needed
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had been concerned that Google's original plan to downgrade third-party cookies could have weakened competition in digital advertising.
In 2022 it accepted commitments from Google that addressed its concerns about its "privacy sandbox" proposals, specifically around plans to remove some third-party cookies from its Chrome browser.
"The CMA believes the commitments are no longer necessary and is now consulting before it takes a decision on whether to release them later this year," it said on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Zelensky blasts NATO members' 'slow' spending increase
Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Vladimir Putin could attack a NATO country within the next five years, as he criticised the alliance for a slow spending ramp up. Speaking to Sky News about the proposed NATO spending target of 5 percent of GDP by 2035, the Ukrainian leader said: 'In my view, this is slow because we believe that starting from 2030 Putin can have significantly greater capabilities.' Zelensky said that although Putin's soldiers 'are all getting annihilated and wiped out at the battlefield' and that the Russian leader 'needs a pause', he said '10 years is a very long time. 'He will have a new army ready [by then].' Zelensky's remarks come after NATO members agreed on Sunday to a big increase in their defence spending target to 5 percent of GDP, as demanded by US President Donald Trump. The UK was among the 32 member countries to agree to the goal, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowing to commit Britain to spending 3.5 percent of GDP on core defence spending, plus a further 1.5 per cent on security-related domestic infrastructure. Starmer's pledge came as he welcomed Zelensky to Downing Street over the weekend ahead of the NATO summit on Tuesday. Sir Keir also announced plans for a new agreement with Ukraine. 'I'm really proud that this afternoon we are able to announce an industrial military co-production agreement, the first of its kind so far as Ukraine and the UK are concerned, which will be a massive step forward now in the contribution that we can continue to make, and is really a symbol of not only our joint work in this conflict, but the 100-year agreement that we've put in place', the prime minister said. It also comes as the Ukrainian leader and Trump are set to meet on Wednesday on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague, a senior source in the Ukrainian presidency told AFP. The war-time leader has been a central figure at recent summits but given his fractious relationship with Trump, Zelensky has not been invited to the main working session with NATO members. 'The teams are finalising the details' of the meeting, the source told AFP, adding that the talks were scheduled for the 'early afternoon' in the Netherlands. The source added that the discussion would focus on Ukraine's 'purchase of a defence package, a large part of which consists of air defence systems'. The leaders would also discuss more 'sanctions against Russia, and a price cap on oil', the source added. Ukraine and its allies have sought to lower an existing oil cap imposed on Russia after it invaded Ukraine more than three years ago, from $60 to $45, to dent the Kremlin war chest. Trump so far has frustrated Western allies by refusing to impose new sanctions on Russia despite President Vladimir Putin's refusal to agree to a Ukraine ceasefire. Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather today for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organisation around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. Last week, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer.' He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.' Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures. The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent. NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Raise taxes or this government will fail, Rachel Reeves's former top adviser warns
Rachel Reeves must U-turn on her manifesto pledge not to raise taxes for working people or Sir Keir Starmer 's government will be forced to abandon other key priorities, one of the chancellor's former top advisers has warned. Jim O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief turned Treasury minister who quit the Conservatives and later advised Ms Reeves, said she faces no choice but to abandon key parts of her economic policy – including her commitment not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions for employees or VAT. Questioning whether that promise was now sustainable, he told The Independent: 'Without changing some of the big taxes, welfare and pensions, they [ Labour ] can't commit to things like Northern Powerhouse Rail, small modular nuclear reactors, and various other things that will make an investment and growth difference.' His comments come in the wake of a disastrous week for Sir Keir's government as ministers were forced to abandon key parts of welfare reforms to stop a rebellion by Labour MPs, leaving a £5bn black hole in its spending plans. In a week defined by a distressed Ms Reeves shedding tears during Prime Minister's Questions, the pressure on the government to balance the books and dramatically change strategy has increased, with the chancellor admitting that the U-turn came at a 'cost'. But with Labour dropping spectacularly in the polls – and the prime minister facing growing disquiet from the back benches – mention of the government's missions has all but disappeared, while the economy stagnates. Lord O'Neill claimed that part of the problem was that the government was caught in short-term thinking about Nigel Farage and Reform, who have taken a large poll lead. 'They need to stop worrying about Farage, they have four years before that should matter,' he said. Reflecting on the problems with the welfare reform bill, he said: 'The past few days should force government to truly prioritise, link specific priorities to their growth mission, get out of the 24/7 social media, and, crucially, recognise it can't deliver on all three of its fiscal rules, growth mission and manifesto tax commitments. Something has to give. 'I'd personally abandon triple lock on pensions, and the current welfare bill, and say they are going to pursue more serious welfare reform.' Top pollster Luke Tryl, UK director at More in Common, told The Independent the government would be better off pushing through big tax hikes now in order to fix public services before the next election. He said: 'At this stage, the government would be better to do a broad-based tax rise and ensure they can deliver on making Britain feel like it's working better, than risk a continuation of the public feeling Britain is totally broken. 'Having boxed themselves in, breaking the promise won't be without pain, but the alternative – four years of the public not seeing change – is far worse politically and for the mood of the country.' On Friday, Ms Reeves refused to rule out tax rises in the wake of what she admitted was the 'damaging' climbdown on welfare cuts. The chancellor is said to have warned that any tax hikes this autumn are likely to be more painful than those she pursued last October, with all low-hanging fruit options having been taken. Asked whether she could rule out tax hikes, she told The Guardian: 'I'm not going to, because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that.' The government is, however, believed to be opposing growing calls from Labour MPs for a wealth tax to fill the hole in the public finances. The UK's leading economic think tanks have, meanwhile, warned that tax rises are inevitable with speculation that there could be a raid on pension funds and new rules to prevent people offsetting tax by putting their money into pensions. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: 'If we are looking at £30bn – which is quite plausible – you can't see a way in which you raise that kind of money without hitting people on middle incomes. 'If you are looking for big money then it has to be something in income tax, national insurance or VAT.' Ben Caswell, senior economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: 'It seems, given the spending review and the allocation of funds, raising taxes in the autumn seems almost inevitable at this point.' Tax expert Arj Kumar, founder of tax advisers Taxd, warned: 'The next Budget will likely see Rachel Reeves dig deeper, raising taxes further to cover government spending on defence and a boost to infrastructure. If these hikes continue to cripple businesses, it's working families who will pay the ultimate price.' The warnings come as the prime minister strongly hinted that the government is going to bring in tax rises at the next Budget. In an interview with the BBC's Nick Robinson, the presenter claimed that Sir Keir had said: ''I'm not going to put your taxes up,'' adding: 'Then taxes went up.' The prime minister hit back: 'Nick, be fair, we had a manifesto commitment that we wouldn't increase income tax, national insurance and VAT for working people. That was a manifesto commitment. That is what I said to you last time, and that is what we've kept to. 'So the one thing we didn't do in the last Budget was we didn't breach that manifesto commitment. We're not going to breach that manifesto commitment.' Critics have noted that his response only closed the door to tax rises on the big three – income tax, VAT and national insurance. Already, a leaked memo from deputy prime minister Angela Rayner to Ms Reeves has revealed that the left of the party is pushing for so-called wealth taxes on the superrich and big corporations. Ms Rayner outlined eight possible new wealth taxes instead of cutting public services further.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Plan to scrap two-child benefit cap ‘dead in the water' after welfare U-turn
Sir Keir Starmer will not scrap the two-child benefit cap after his U-turn on welfare cuts left a £5bn hole in Labour 's spending plans. Senior Labour figures have reportedly warned that tax hikes are on the horizon after the benefits climbdown, with a change in the controversial cap, introduced when George Osborne was chancellor, now thought to be off the table. 'My assessment is that is now dead in the water,' a No 10 source told The Sunday Times. A source close to the chancellor added: 'MPs will need to acknowledge that there is a financial cost to not approving the welfare changes, whether that's tax rises or not scrapping the two-child benefit cap. They need to understand the trade-offs.' The prospect of Labour keeping the two-child benefit cap in place will provoke fresh unrest among Labour backbenchers, who have a taste for rebellion after forcing Sir Keir's hand on cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. Sir Keir is believed to have told his cabinet he wants to scrap the two-child cap - first imposed by Osborne in 2015. Critics of the policy, which restricts parents from claiming certain benefits for more than two of their children, say it pushes children into poverty. Charities frequently cite the £3.4bn move as one of the most cost effective ways of alleviating child poverty. Asked on Thursday whether he still wanted to scrap the two-child cap, Sir Keir said: 'The last Labour government drove down child poverty and it's one of the proudest things that we did. 'Sadly, the last government allowed child poverty to go back up again. 'I'm determined that this government will drive it down, just as the last Labour government did. 'We've got a strategy and a task force working on this and will lay out the details of that. I personally don't think there's a silver bullet that if you do this one thing, it will deal with child poverty.' Pressure on the PM over the two-child benefit cap will likely increase in the run up to this autumn's Budget, in which Rachel Reeves has been warned she must raise taxes or put Labour's agenda at risk. Jim O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief turned Treasury minister who quit the Conservatives and later advised Ms Reeves, said she faces no choice but to abandon key parts of her economic policy – including her commitment not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions for employees or VAT. 'Without changing some of the big taxes, welfare and pensions, they [Labour] can't commit to things like Northern Powerhouse Rail, small modular nuclear reactors, and various other things that will make an investment and growth difference,' he told The Independent.
