In April, Google reached out to small business owners across the country, urging them to oppose California Assembly Bill 566. The bill would require web browsers to give users a way to automatically signal websites not to share their personal data with third parties. The measure is backed by the California Privacy Protection Agency, which enforces state privacy regulations.
Rhode Island resident Navah Hopkins was among those who received an email from Google asking her to sign a petition against AB 566. According to Hopkins, “It was intentionally misleading people that by this bill passing, they were going to lose out on all of these tools within Google (to advertise).”
Google’s opposition campaign was conducted quietly; the company did not publicly announce its stance on the bill. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, author of AB 566, said he was unaware of Google’s outreach until contacted by CalMatters and noted his office had not received any signatures or direct communication from small business owners. The petition circulated was officially from the Connected Commerce Council—a group financially supported by Google—rather than from Google itself.
This approach reflects broader efforts by tech companies to influence legislation without direct public involvement. Last year, Google used similar tactics to block related legislation that Governor Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed.
The effectiveness of Google’s lobbying this year remains unclear. However, before AB 566 came up for a final vote, Lowenthal amended it to delay implementation until 2027 and added liability protections for browser companies like Google. Lowenthal stated he took input 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.”
Google declined requests for comment on its role in opposing AB 566.
Records show that last year Google increased its lobbying spending in California more than at any point in two decades. This included efforts against AI regulation and requirements for local news funding as well as previous versions of browser privacy bills. In 2024 alone, Google disclosed nearly $700,000 in lobbying expenditures targeting state leaders over bills including AB 566.
Tracking Google’s influence is complicated because the company often pays groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and Connected Commerce Council to lobby on its behalf rather than stating positions directly. State filings indicate that while Google registered interest in 17 different bills this year—including measures on social media warnings and algorithmic healthcare decisions—it only made its position public on one: a proposal requiring online age verification.
Sean McMorris of California Common Cause commented on these practices: “This type of activity … exemplifies the skewed playing field that we have to play on,” adding, “It’s important to report on and to point out these strategies and loopholes that money can afford you the privilege to engage in, and the public has every right to scrutinize whether that is just or not.”
Brandon Forester from MediaJustice criticized what he described as shadow lobbying: “None of us wants to enter a surveillance marketplace every time that we go on the internet,” he said. “Part of the reason they need to do the shadow lobbying is because the things that they want to do to achieve their infinite growth model is not good for the public.”
AB 566 follows up on a 2018 law requiring businesses in California to let customers opt out of having their information shared or sold. Browsers like DuckDuckGo, Brave, and Firefox already offer features enabling automatic opt-out signals.
Opponents such as Ronak Dalami of the California Chamber of Commerce argue AB 566 imposes burdensome mandates: “Browsers and devices already compete to offer clear, effective privacy controls.” Last year’s similar legislation was vetoed by Governor Newsom due in part to concerns about mobile device usability: “To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators,” Newsom wrote at the time.
Bianca Blomquist from Small Business Majority questioned Google’s motives after receiving advocacy emails sent via Grow with Google program lists: “What we find is that small business owners … and partner organizations oftentimes sign on to support or oppose legislation without having an understanding of what it does.”
The Connected Commerce Council (3C), which authored this year’s petition against AB 566 and counts both Google and Amazon among its funders, also sent letters warning lawmakers about possible negative impacts for small businesses. Rob Retzlaff, executive director of 3C wrote: “Implementing a sweeping experiment that would jeopardize small businesses’ success, limit Californians’ access to relevant products and services, and potentially disrupt access to free web content, is not a sensible way forward.”
During a recent press conference organized by 3C, some online business owners argued AB 566 could make targeted advertising harder or inadvertently block customers from accessing deals if they opt out.
Although Google reported paying almost $100,000 this year for lobbying through groups like California Chamber of Commerce—and smaller amounts through others—it did not disclose payments specifically tied directly with opposition campaigns led by groups such as Connected Commerce Council.
McMorris called for greater scrutiny regarding such indirect payments: “If it’s not for (AB566), then what was it for? That’s where the law gets murky… both sides know how to play the game without explicitly saying…”
Jeremy Mack from Phoenix Project compared Google’s user-mobilization strategy with those used previously by Uber or Lyft during Proposition 22 debates: “It’s not surprising that Google would do this… but it’s definitely good…to put it on their radar.” Austin Ahlman at Open Markets Institute noted big tech firms often use their platforms’ reach among users reliant upon them when facing regulatory threats.
Meta has similarly mobilized small businesses internationally during legislative battles over news-linking requirements; major tech firms have also previously organized widespread digital protests against proposed laws like SOPA/PIPA.
UCLA sociologist Edward Walker observed these grassroots-style campaigns are most effective when users feel personally affected but warned such tactics can backfire if perceived as manipulative: “If you do this in a scattershot way…you really increase risk it’s going backfire…”
The fate of AB 566 will be decided before Saturday’s legislative deadline.
