Google Chrome abandons plans to phase out third-party cookies

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 584   +13
Staff
What just happened? In a significant reversal that will send ripples through the advertising industry, Google has announced that it will no longer introduce a standalone prompt for third-party cookies in its Chrome browser. The decision marks a dramatic departure from the company's long-standing plan to phase out cookies entirely, a move that has been in waiting for several years now and was closely monitored by regulators, advertisers, and privacy advocates alike.

The announcement, delivered by Anthony Chavez, VPt of Privacy Sandbox at Google, confirmed that Chrome users will continue to manage their third-party cookie preferences through existing privacy and security settings, rather than being presented with a new, explicit prompt.

"We've made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies," Chavez wrote in a blog post on April 22.

He emphasized that users can still choose the best option for themselves within Chrome's settings.

This policy shift effectively halts Google's multi-year campaign to eliminate third-party cookies from Chrome, a browser that commands over 60 percent of the global market. The original plan, announced in 2020, aimed to bring Chrome in line with competitors like Firefox and Safari, which had already blocked third-party cookies by default. Google's approach, however, was more cautious, citing the need to balance user privacy with the economic realities of the ad-supported web.

The company's Privacy Sandbox initiative was intended to develop alternative technologies that would enable targeted advertising while preserving user privacy. These included tools such as the Topics API and various new APIs for ad measurement and fraud prevention.

Despite these efforts, industry feedback revealed deep concerns. Many in ad tech argued that the proposed replacements couldn't match the scalability or real-time processing capabilities of third-party cookies, while publishers worried about revenue loss and the technical complexity of implementing new systems.

Regulatory scrutiny also played a decisive role in Google's change of course. In April 2024, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) intervened, requesting a pause in the rollout over concerns that Google's dominance in both browsers and digital advertising could be further entrenched by the proposed changes. The CMA demanded assurances that any new system would not unfairly advantage Google's own ad products.

Meanwhile, privacy advocates and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation continued to criticize Google's alternatives, arguing they still enabled user tracking and introduced new privacy concerns.

Chavez acknowledged these divergent perspectives in his post, noting ongoing engagement with both industry stakeholders and regulators. While the complete removal of third-party cookies is now off the table, he said the Privacy Sandbox project will continue in a modified form. Google plans to keep developing privacy features – such as IP Protection for Incognito users – and will gather additional feedback before updating its roadmap for future technologies.

Critics responded swiftly. The Movement for an Open Web, a group that had previously challenged Google's plans before the CMA, described the announcement to The Verge as "an admission of defeat."

They argued that Google's attempt to reshape the digital advertising ecosystem in its own favor was ultimately stymied by regulatory and industry resistance.

For now, third-party cookies will remain a fixture in Chrome, leaving the digital advertising industry grappling with the implications.

Permalink to story:

 
It's beyond me why anyone in their right mind would use the horrible privacy intrusion that Google Chrome is (or any other software by Google).

Given that Firefox exists, the fact Chrome has more users than there are Google employees is shocking.
If you like the browser so much for some reason, there's Chromium - which is Chrome without Google's spyware & bloatware.
 
Perhaps shareholders had concerns of Chrome being sold. To any big Corporate there is no defeat only other opportunities to make more money especially like Google. And with AI and Google being a big player... In time all this will pass and it's business as usual.
 
I like digital advertising being in limbo. In fact, if I could wish for only a specific sector to lose any semblance of financial viability, that'd be the one.
 
Does it have anything to do with antimonopoly investigation?
Not even... Investigations (in the USA) are about their search engine and adserving technology. NOW, Google probably got scared of being sued like Apple got sued in the EU to further its own interests at the expense of competitors with their supposedly privacy measures...
 
It's beyond me why anyone in their right mind would use the horrible privacy intrusion that Google Chrome is (or any other software by Google).

Given that Firefox exists, the fact Chrome has more users than there are Google employees is shocking.
If you like the browser so much for some reason, there's Chromium - which is Chrome without Google's spyware & bloatware.
Because your lord and savior Firefox isnt any better

https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml

Let's not forget Mozilla spent the better part of a decade firing their CEO and engaging in political rightthink instead of upgrading their browser to 64 bit or multi threading, which was a huge component in their downfall as a browser. Sure, chrome eats RAM, but even now Mozilla is nothing but (poorly coded) controlled opposition that has stripped most of its features from power users while calling them names.

And Google never forced Pocket on Sponsored Sites onto my homepage. Mozilla, OTOH........Oh, and the feature to export site history and logons works on Chrome without issue. Again, OTOH.....is mozilla.
 
Because your lord and savior Firefox isnt any better

https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml

Let's not forget Mozilla spent the better part of a decade firing their CEO and engaging in political rightthink instead of upgrading their browser to 64 bit or multi threading, which was a huge component in their downfall as a browser. Sure, chrome eats RAM, but even now Mozilla is nothing but (poorly coded) controlled opposition that has stripped most of its features from power users while calling them names.

And Google never forced Pocket on Sponsored Sites onto my homepage. Mozilla, OTOH........Oh, and the feature to export site history and logons works on Chrome without issue. Again, OTOH.....is mozilla.
Well ... my Firefox is 64 bit, I don't have Pocket or anything sponsored on my homepage, and all the features I need are either built in or available through extensions.

The page to which you posted a link has late 1990s look and feel, maybe that also applies to content?
 
Back