In April, Navah Hopkins, a small business owner in Rhode Island, received an email from Google urging her to sign a petition against California Assembly Bill 566. The bill would require web browsers to give users the option to automatically signal websites not to share their personal data with third parties. Sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency, AB 566 aims to streamline consumer privacy protections.
Google’s email warned recipients that the legislation would “hurt your ability to use online ads to reach customers.” Hopkins described the message as misleading and noted that it implied small businesses would lose access to Google’s advertising tools if the bill passed.
The tech company did not make its opposition public. Instead, it worked through groups such as the Connected Commerce Council—a lobbying organization financially supported by Google but not clearly branded as such on the petition circulated among small business owners. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, who authored AB 566, was unaware of Google’s outreach campaign until informed by a reporter and stated his office had not received feedback or signatures from small businesses regarding the petition.
This indirect advocacy is part of Google’s broader strategy to influence policy while keeping its involvement discreet. Last year, Google used similar tactics—mobilizing small businesses via email lists—to oppose related privacy legislation that was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
While it remains unclear how many people Google mobilized this year or how effective its efforts were, experts caution that these strategies could backfire if recipients feel misled. Before reaching a final vote, AB 566 was amended to delay implementation until 2027 and provide liability protections for browser companies like Google. Lowenthal said he incorporated feedback from “colleagues and stakeholders” in shaping the bill: “With any bill that’s been vetoed before, it takes some give-and-take to get it across the finish line.”
The bill passed both chambers of California’s Legislature and awaits action from Governor Newsom.
Google declined requests for comment on its position or activities related to AB 566.
According to public records and reporting from organizations such as Open Markets Institute, Google has significantly increased its lobbying spending in California in recent years—reportedly investing nearly $700,000 this year alone on issues including AB 566. However, much of this activity is routed through third-party groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and Connected Commerce Council rather than being directly attributed to Google itself.
Sean McMorris of California Common Cause commented on this approach: “This type of activity … exemplifies the skewed playing field that we have to play on,” adding that transparency is essential so “the public has every right to scrutinize whether that is just or not.”
Brandon Forester of MediaJustice argued for greater openness: “None of us wants to enter a surveillance marketplace every time that we go on the internet… Part of the reason they need to do the shadow lobbying is because the things that they want to do… are not good for the public.”
Under existing law since 2018, Californians can request companies stop selling or sharing their personal information. AB 566 seeks a more efficient way for consumers by making browsers send opt-out signals automatically—a feature already available in browsers like DuckDuckGo and Firefox.
Opponents argue this requirement is burdensome and lacks clarity. Ronak Dalami from the California Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers: “Browsers and devices already compete to offer clear, effective privacy controls.” A similar measure last year was vetoed over concerns about design risks posed by regulating mobile operating systems at a legislative level instead of leaving those decisions with developers.
Bianca Blomquist from Small Business Majority questioned claims made in Google’s emails suggesting higher costs for small businesses under stricter privacy rules. She observed most business owners care more about data privacy than user interface complexity.
The Connected Commerce Council (3C), which counts both Google and Amazon as funders according to past disclosures, led efforts opposing AB 566 among small businesses this year but did not report receiving direct payments from Google for lobbying work specific to this legislation. Still, financial disclosures show Google paid nearly $100,000 this year alone for lobbying services provided by other groups registered in opposition—including TechNet ($2,500).
Rob Retzlaff of Connected Commerce Council wrote legislators warning: “Implementing a sweeping experiment that would jeopardize small businesses’ success… is not a sensible way forward.”
Experts note tech firms often combine traditional lobbying with grassroots mobilization campaigns when facing regulatory threats. These approaches are more common now among technology companies due partly to their ability to leverage user data and communicate directly with platform users—tactics previously associated mainly with industries like tobacco or pharmaceuticals.
UCLA sociologist Edward Walker pointed out such strategies are only successful if users are motivated: “It’s important…to know these kinds of grassroots lobbying strategies…are a double-edged sword.” If executed poorly or too frequently they risk undermining trust rather than building support.
