LONDON – October 30, 2024 – Pixalate, the global market-leading ad fraud protection, privacy, and compliance analytics platform, today released the September 2024 Open Programmatic Ads and No Detected Privacy Policy Benchmarks Report for the Google Play Store, part of Pixalate’s Privacy Violation Risks in Mobile Apps series. The report reveals new findings on the number of Google Play Store hosted mobile apps enabled for open programmatic advertising (i.e., apps with an app-ads.txt file) but have no detected privacy policies, according to Pixalate’s data. Pixalate also released an Apple App Store version of the report.
A privacy policy, also known as a ‘privacy statement’ or ‘notice,’ is an essential document often required to be disclosed under multiple global privacy laws and regulations, including the GDPR, CCPA, and more. It outlines how users’ personal data is handled by organizations and discloses individuals’ data privacy rights.
Pixalate’s data science team analyzed over 587,000 mobile apps available for download across the Google Play Store in September 2024 to compile this research.
About Pixalate
Pixalate is the market-leading fraud protection, privacy, and compliance analytics platform for Connected TV (CTV) and Mobile Advertising. We work 24/7 to guard your reputation and grow your media value. Pixalate offers the only system of coordinated solutions across display, app, video, and CTV for better detection and elimination of ad fraud. Pixalate is an MRC-accredited service for the detection and filtration of sophisticated invalid traffic (SIVT) across desktop and mobile web, mobile in-app, and CTV advertising. www.pixalate.com
Disclaimer
The content of this press release, and the September 2024 Open Programmatic Ads and No Detected Privacy Policy Benchmarks Report (the ‘report’)– including all content set forth herein – reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to subject matter that Pixalate believes may be useful to the digital media industry, inclusive of advertisers, advertising technology companies, developers of mobile applications, professional advisors, non-governmental entities, and regulators. Pixalate is sharing this report’s data–and opinions relating thereto–not to impugn the standing or reputation of any entity, person, or app, but, instead, to report opinions and suggest trends pertaining to certain apps available for download via the Google Play Store during the time period studied. Any data shared herein is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and compliance analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that: opinions (i.e., they are neither facts nor guarantees). Pixalate's opinions regarding possible applicability of, legal obligations under, and compliance with applicable data protection and privacy laws and regulations are for informational purposes only, and are not offered as legal advice. Nothing in this report: (i) is intended to constitute professional and/or legal advice; (ii) actually constitutes professional and/or legal advice; or (ii) sets forth a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law relating thereto.
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
These Stories on Mobile Apps
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Disclaimer: The content of this page reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that - opinion, not facts or guarantees.
Per the MRC, “'Fraud' is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in U.S. Court or other legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes. Also per the MRC, “‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts. Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”
