Consumer Privacy Concerns

You finish dinner. The card reader flashes “Payment Complete” and offers two options: text receipt or email receipt. No print option. If you want a record, you have to hand over your phone number or email. A reasonable person might believe the information they provide will be used just to deliver their receipt. But behind the sleek interface is an ecosystem optimized for businesses, not individuals. When you enter your contact information, it doesn’t just vanish after the receipt is sent. Rather, according to this payment platform’s unseen privacy policy, your data may be stored, linked to prior purchases, and used to “personalize your experience,” or “send you marketing communications.” It may be shared with service providers or partners. It may be retained even if you didn’t sign up for anything. None of this is visible in the moment, and that’s by design. The privacy policy isn’t on the screen. There isnt a simple explanation of what happens to your data or even a clear link to a privacy policy. And there’s no real choice. You either hand over your personal information or walk away with nothing. This is the new default: consumer tools designed for the seller’s benefit, not yours. We are witnessing the calculated erosion of our privacy rights through deliberate design. We need federal #privacy legislation in the United States. We shouldn’t have to trade the use of our personal information for a receipt. And we shouldn’t continue perpetuating the fiction that consumers have a real choice in the matter.

📊 Your apps are spying on you, but will DPDPA enforcement protect you from it? Probably not. With the DPDP Act introduced in '23, and enforcement being rolled out from November '25 it seems governments are finally making moves to protect consumer data. But what are they really protecting? ❓Sure, there’s effort around protecting the customer personal data: phone number, email, bank statement (keen to see how this enforced by the way, at this point it feels like every loan app out there has my number) But what about your second level data: the behavioral, inferred data, and the profiling story? 🚨 I've written about this in the past - we joke about how apps are listening in to our everyday conversations, but that isn't far from the truth. Apps are silently detecting other apps installed on your phone without consent. And it doesn’t seem like any privacy laws are protecting us from this anytime soon. Here's the thing. I honestly don’t care who has my number anymore. It’s probably been leaked, sold or scraped by now. What I do care about is profiling done without my knowledge. Example: Zomato checks forRedbus, OYO, & fantasy gaming. Swiggy checks for Zara, FirstCry, and others. (Why does a food app need to know that I shop for baby products?). And this isn’t theoretical. This can and does lead to discriminatory pricing: different loan rates, insurance premiums or offers based on assumptions inferred from your app list My problem isn’t just that this happens. It’s that I don’t even know. On iOS, up to 50 such “silent queries” are allowed. On Android? Up to 1000.  And while GDPR has laws against PII data usage & AI profiling, clearly they aren’t enforcing this This also seems to be a limitation of the DPDP Act. It’s built around the themes of user consent, purpose limitation, data minimisation, and data fiduciary accountability. It isn’t built around restricting customer profiling or preventing surveillance. So then, paradoxically: ✅ Asking for explicit customer data (PAN / Aadhar) is clearly regulated ❗Inferring behaviour via app installs or transaction patterns without the customer’s knowledge is not, which is actually even more invasive than explicit PII data! Ideally collecting this data should fall under the data minimization / purpose limitation themes, but that doesn’t seem to be the lens that DPDP has taken at this point. And because the collection of this data is framed as a “fraud / risk” need, and / or as operational metadata it often bypasses the minimization / limitation themes, when it is essentially behavioral fingerprinting, and often more revealing than regulated personal data! Privacy isn’t just about what we give away knowingly. (and since we don’t know we can’t file a complaint). It’s also about what gets extracted without us knowing. We need better answers. And stronger laws 🧠 Deep dive in comments.

When was the last time you actually read a privacy policy before clicking “accept”? Most consumers don’t. But they’re starting to care more than ever. Google searches for “data privacy” have jumped by 239% over the past decade. 56% of people say they wish they had more control over their personal data. And 87% of North Americans told McKinsey & Company they would not do business with a company they didn’t trust with it. It’s fascinating because privacy used to be a “backend” issue. Something IT or legal handled. Now, it’s shaping how consumers buy, how they engage, and how they feel about a brand. Apple’s “Sign in with Apple” wasn’t just a product feature, it was a branding move. It positioned them as the company that protects, not exploits, your data. And that shift is spreading fast. From CPG loyalty programs to retail media networks, the brands that thrive will be the ones that treat consumer data as an earned privilege, not a right. In FMCG, I’m watching this play out in subtle but important ways: – Consumers opting out of cookie-based personalization entirely. – Loyalty app downloads slowing unless there’s a clear value exchange. – PE-backed consumer brands realizing that data collection without transparency is a short-term play with long-term cost. Privacy is now a brand value. It signals respect. And it’s fast becoming a deciding factor in purchase decisions, sometimes even above convenience. 90% of consumers think governments and businesses should protect their data, but 70% don’t trust them to actually do it. That gap between responsibility and trust, is where leadership has to step in. If you’re leading a consumer brand today, your next competitive advantage might not come from a new SKU or pricing model, but from how transparently you handle data. Consumers are watching. And they’re voting with their clicks. What are you seeing in your category? Are consumers asking tougher questions about how their data is used? #FMCG #Consumerinsights #Consumerbehaviour #Trending

Insightful article discussing the fact that, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been purchasing internet browsing records from data brokers, bypassing the need for a court order. This practice has raised significant privacy concerns, as it involves obtaining detailed information about Americans' online activities without their consent. For anyone remotely concerned about the individual right to privacy this should not be taken lightly. The NSA's admission of buying internet browsing records from data brokers without a court order is a significant concern for individual privacy. This practice not only bypasses legal safeguards but also highlights the opaque nature of data brokerage and the potential for misuse of personal information. The ability to infer sensitive personal details from browsing metadata poses serious privacy risks, particularly when individuals are unaware of how and where their data is being utilized. Key Points: NSA's Purchase of Browsing Records: The NSA admitted to buying internet browsing data, which includes information on websites and apps used by Americans, from data brokers. Privacy Concerns: Such metadata can reveal personal details based on individuals' browsing habits, including sensitive information related to mental health, sexual assault, telehealth services, birth control, and abortion medication. NSA's Compliance Measures: In response to Wyden's queries, the NSA stated that it has developed compliance regimes to minimize the collection of U.S. person information and focuses on acquiring only mission-critical data. Restrictions on Location Data: The NSA clarified that it does not buy or use location data from phones or vehicles in the U.S. without a court order. DoD's Stance: Ronald S. Moultrie, under secretary of defense for intelligence and security, affirmed that the Department of Defense acquires and uses commercially available information while adhering to privacy and civil liberties standards. Precedent of Data Purchase: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was previously reported to have bought domestic location data from smartphones through commercial data brokers. FTC's Action Against Data Brokers: The Federal Trade Commission prohibited Outlogic and InMarket Media from selling precise location information without users' informed consent. Outlogic is also barred from collecting data that could track visits to sensitive locations. Legal and Ethical Implications: Wyden pointed out the legal gray area in which these data purchases occur and the lack of consumer awareness about how their data is being shared and used.

80% of people believe the privacy risks outweigh the benefits of personalized marketing. Yet they still crave relevant, tailored experiences. This is the paradox keeping pharma and healthcare marketers awake at night. As someone who's spent years navigating the intersection of privacy and personalization in healthcare, I can tell you: we're facing an "arms race" between customer expectations and privacy concerns—and traditional approaches are failing both sides. The numbers are sobering:  ▪️ 2/3 of Americans believe they can't go through life without being tracked  ▪️ 79% don't trust companies to be responsible with their data  ▪️ 75% don't believe governments will hold companies accountable But here's what's really concerning me: Some healthcare marketers are still operating like it's 2010. While third-party cookies disappear and privacy laws evolve daily, some are still using ethically questionable tactics like fingerprinting—the exact behaviour driving consumer distrust. The path forward isn't choosing between privacy OR personalization. It's building harmony between both. After working with dozens of pharma companies on this challenge, I've identified what actually works: 🎯 Customer-centric privacy: Ask "Does this benefit THEM directly?" not just "Can we legally do this?" 🔒 Context-appropriate silos: Practitioner data stays separate from patient data unless absolutely necessary 🏗️ Privacy by design: Build protection into every process, not as an afterthought ⚖️ Transparent consent: Simple, complete explanations of data use—no legal jargon The companies getting this right aren't just avoiding regulatory headaches. They're building deeper trust, higher engagement, and ultimately better patient outcomes. Remember: In healthcare, we're not just marketers—we're stewards of some of the most sensitive information people will ever share. That's not a burden; it's a competitive advantage when done right. Privacy laws will keep changing. Customer expectations will keep evolving. But the principle remains constant: Put the customer's interests at the heart of every data decision. How is your organization balancing personalization with privacy? I'd love to hear your strategies and challenges. #HealthcareMarketing #DataPrivacy #PatientTrust #Personalization

Analysis of "Cookies, Identifiers and Other Data That Google Silently Stores on Android Handsets" Study This study, conducted by D.J. Leith from Trinity College Dublin, investigates the data stored on Android devices by pre-installed Google apps, including Google Play Services and the Google Play Store. The findings raise significant privacy concerns related to user consent, data tracking, and compliance with EU privacy regulations (GDPR & e-Privacy Directive). Potential Legal and Privacy Implications Violation of EU e-Privacy Directive - Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive requires explicit user consent before storing or accessing any data on user devices. - No consent is sought for any of the cookies or identifiers stored by Google. - No opt-out mechanism is provided, meaning users have no control over this tracking. Potential GDPR Violations - Google Android ID, DSID, NID, and other identifiers likely count as personal data under GDPR. - Google’s lack of transparency about the use of these identifiers violates GDPR’s principles of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency. - Processing of sensitive data (e.g., sexual orientation via Play Store ad tracking on "gay dating apps") requires explicit consent under GDPR Article 9. - Google automatically logging users into multiple apps without consent could violate GDPR’s purpose limitation principle. What This Means for Users - Even if you factory reset your Android device and don’t use Google apps, tracking still happens. - Google is automatically logging users into multiple services, collecting telemetry data, and storing tracking identifiers without consent. - The study suggests Google may be violating both GDPR and the EU e-Privacy Directive. This study provides strong technical evidence that Google is storing personal data without user consent and in a manner that may violate EU privacy laws. The lack of transparency and opt-out options is particularly concerning. If regulators take action, this could lead to major legal consequences for Google, similar to past GDPR fines. However, for now, Android users remain heavily tracked unless they take active measures to limit Google’s data collection. Notice: Since the study was published, Google has announced fingerprinting is now applied across all devices and services, meaning the potential impact of Googles abuse in data collection is now unparalleled, and it makes Google one of the most data collecting organizations on the planet. Direct link to the study: https://lnkd.in/gXj2fr2c #Privacy #GDPR #DataProtection #ePrivacy #GoogleTracking #AndroidPrivacy #UserConsent #BigTech #CyberSecurity #TechRegulation #SurveillanceEconomy #DigitalRights #TechEthics

$632,500 for making consumer privacy rights too difficult to exercise. That’s the fine Honda received from the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). It’s a wake-up call for companies still treating privacy rights as a checkbox exercise. It’s also something I’ve seen repeatedly in privacy assessments - companies making it unreasonably difficult for consumers to exercise their privacy rights. Here are some areas regulators flagged: ❗ Requiring up to 8 fields of information just to opt out (excessive!) ❗ Creating a convoluted submission process for privacy rights requests ❗ Consumers had to directly confirm they authorized an agent to submit a request to opt out of sale/sharing or request to limit (illegal under CCPA) ❗ Failing to train employees handling privacy requests ❗ Ignoring Global Privacy Control (GPC) signals ❗ Creating multiple steps to opt out while enabling one-click opt ins ❗ Sharing data with vendors without proper documentation The lesson? Privacy rights must be PRACTICALLY accessible, not just technically available. Is your company vulnerable to similar issues? Ask: ✅ Can consumers opt out in 2 steps or fewer? ✅ Does your site recognize GPC signals? ✅ Do you have contracts with all vendors covering CCPA obligations? ✅ Is your team trained to process all types of privacy requests? ✅ Is opting out just as simple as opting in? I'm seeing regulators across states increasingly focus on the how, not just the what of privacy compliance. The days of hiding opt-out buttons or creating friction-filled privacy request processes are over. Make it easier for people to exercise their privacy rights. What's been your experience with consumer privacy rights implementations? Have you seen examples of companies doing this particularly well (or poorly)? Read more about the critical compliance areas companies should review in my latest article for the IAPP: https://lnkd.in/e4aH7Qna

The next big data privacy scandal in 2026 is not surveillance. It is surveillance pricing. Two people can buy the same thing on the same day and pay different prices because their data told the system they would tolerate it. This is the part more people need to understand. The next privacy battle is not only about: “Who has my data?” It is also about: “What are they doing with it?” Because once companies know your location, device type, browsing behaviour, repeat visits, urgency signals, and purchase history, privacy becomes a pricing issue. We are already seeing signals of this. Uber openly calls it surge pricing. Airbnb has Smart Pricing. Amazon lets sellers automate price changes in real time. Hotels and airlines have used dynamic pricing for years. In 2025, India’s consumer affairs ministry sent notices to Ola and Uber after allegations that identical rides were being priced differently on Apple and Android phones. So, what changes the privacy conversation is when dynamic pricing stops reacting only to market demand and starts learning from the customer in front of it. This is why I think the most important privacy question in 2026 is no longer: “Was my data leaked?” It is: “Is my data being used to influence the price, urgency, ranking, or offer I see?” Think about everyday Indian internet behaviour: You check a flight 4 times from the same laptop. You open a hotel app from a premium phone. You try booking a cab during rain, from a high-income pin code, late at night. You revisit the same product after showing clear buying intent. You may still call it convenience. But increasingly, it can also become behavioural exploitation. Because the moment customers feel the system knows them well enough to charge them more, trust collapses. And once trust collapses, growth gets expensive. My view is simple: Data privacy in 2026 is not just about protecting people from theft. It is about protecting people from invisible disadvantage. That is the conversation more founders, platforms, and regulators need to have now. Whats your surveillance pricing case you faced? Seqrite #DataPrivacy #DynamicPricing #AI #ConsumerRights #DigitalEconomy #Privacy #TechPolicy #StartupIndia #CyberSecurity #TrustInTechnology

Not long ago, I used to debate with a friend who believed privacy was overrated. His argument: “I have nothing to hide.” My counter: privacy is not about hiding, it is about protecting freedom, fairness, and trust. Fast forward to today, and New York has passed a groundbreaking law requiring stores to disclose when prices are set using your personal data. This practice, called surveillance pricing, can mean paying more for the same item simply because of who you are, where you live, or even how urgently you need something. Imagine a parent buying fever medicine for their child late at night, only to be charged more than another customer because an algorithm detects desperation. That is not innovation it is exploitation. In this week’s Tech Tales, I explore how surveillance pricing works, why it matters, and what we can do to protect ourselves in a world where algorithms are quietly shaping the cost of living. #TechTales #Privacy #SurveillancePricing #AlgorithmicBias #ConsumerProtection #ArtificialIntelligence #DataPrivacy #EthicalTech #RetailTech #DigitalRights

This research investigates consumer preferences for AI-enhanced products across different consumer segments, product types, and countries, emphasizing privacy, social connections, and violence concerns as key motivators for AI product adoption. 1️⃣ AI Privacy Gain: It refers to increased self-reliance and free time, as AI products handle tasks like making calls or scheduling appointments, allowing users more personal time. 2️⃣ AI Privacy Concern: This involves worries about surveillance and data collection in private settings. AI's ability to autonomously manage personal tasks raises concerns about intrusions and information leakage. 3️⃣ AI Social Connection: This benefit arises from AI products that simulate human-like interactions, offering companionship similar to relationships with pets or people. It appeals particularly to those with strong social needs. 4️⃣ AI Violence Concern: This reflects fears that AI products could autonomously engage in harmful behaviors (e.g., threatening or injuring users) due to technical issues or malicious manipulation. 5️⃣ AI privacy gain and AI social connection increase purchase intentions, especially among consumers with low health satisfaction, existing AI product owners, lonely, and extraverted individuals. 6️⃣ AI privacy concerns and AI violence concerns deter purchase intentions, with stronger effects among those with a high need for cognition and less open individuals. 7️⃣ Country-specific variations exist: AI privacy gain is most influential in the U.S., while privacy and violence concerns are strongest deterrents in Japan. AI social connection is least effective in China. 8️⃣ Product design influences preferences: "Organism" designs (e.g., humanoid robots) increase privacy concerns but reduce violence concerns compared to "object" designs (e.g., vacuum robots). ✍🏻 Björn Frank. Consumer preferences for artificial intelligence-enhanced products: Differences across consumer segments, product types, and countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123774