Google’s IP Tracking Double Standard: A Deliberate Obfuscation of Privacy Protections

Google’s latest half-hearted attempt to limit IP tracking is yet another example of the tech giant’s ongoing strategy: pretend to protect user privacy while ensuring that its advertising empire remains intact. The company’s recent announcement that it will only obfuscate IP addresses in incognito mode is an apparent concession to its own business interests, designed to deflect regulatory scrutiny while maintaining the status quo for ad tracking.

Let’s be clear: this is not meaningful privacy reform. If Google were serious about limiting fingerprinting and cross-site tracking, it would take the same aggressive approach as Apple—blocking IP-based tracking across all browsing sessions. Instead, it has chosen a convoluted, selective enforcement model that protects its own assets while throwing crumbs to privacy advocates.

The Flimsy Justifications

Google claims that removing IP access entirely would create too much "disruption" for fraud prevention and other essential use cases. This is a thinly veiled excuse. Other companies—Apple included—have managed to implement true IP obfuscation without bringing the internet to a standstill. The difference? Apple doesn’t rely on invasive tracking to fuel a multi-billion-dollar advertising business.

Meanwhile, Chrome’s new "Masked Domain List" (MDL) ensures that only certain domains—including many of Google’s own—are affected. This reeks of self-serving policy-making, giving Google’s advertising platforms a competitive advantage under the guise of privacy reform.

Google’s Contradictions on Fingerprinting

The Real Consequences for the Open Web

Google’s selective enforcement of IP obfuscation is a disaster for publishers and independent ad tech players. It creates a fragmented, uneven playing field, where Google benefits from privileged data access while restricting competitors from using similar techniques. By limiting who can and cannot access IP data, Google is reinforcing its dominance under the pretense of compliance.

For years, regulators and industry watchdogs have warned that Google’s Privacy Sandbox is just another way to consolidate power. This latest move—allowing fingerprinting for Google’s own platforms while restricting it elsewhere—is yet another piece of evidence supporting that claim.

The Path Forward

If the industry truly wants to move toward privacy-first advertising, the answer isn’t Google’s selective restrictions. Instead, we need:

• Consistent IP Obfuscation: If Google is serious about privacy, IP masking should apply to all browsing sessions, not just incognito mode.
• Greater Transparency: Regulators and industry stakeholders must demand clearer disclosures about how Google applies different privacy policies to its own products versus third-party platforms.
• Stronger Regulatory Oversight: The EU, U.S. regulators, and other authorities must scrutinize Google’s selective application of privacy protections and ensure it does not further entrench its monopoly.

What Does this Mean for Publisher Strategies?

For publishers, Google’s selective enforcement of IP obfuscation isn’t just an inconvenience—it directly threatens their ability to monetize content effectively. Given the pressures already undermining the advertising-supported business model of the open web, publishers must adopt a proactive strategy to safeguard their revenue streams.

1. Embracing First-Party Data
   With third-party cookies on their slow descent, first-party data continues to grow in value. Especially as IP signals continue to erode. Publishers must focus on collecting, organizing, and leveraging their audience data to build targeted advertising segments. This includes implementing robust user authentication strategies (such as email sign-ups, subscriptions, and loyalty programs) to gather consent-based data that can replace reliance on cross-site tracking.
2. Maximizing Third-Party Cookie Usage While Available
   Although third-party cookies are being phased out, they are still functional for a large portion of the web. Publishers should continue to take advantage of them where possible, using cookie-based tracking to segment audiences, optimize bidding strategies, and enhance ad targeting before the window fully closes.
3. Leveraging Alternative Identifiers
   Since Google’s changes disproportionately impact non-Google ad tech players, publishers should explore independent identity solutions such as The Trade Desk’s Unified ID 2.0 (UID2), Id5, Panorama, Audigent’s Hadron, and Prebid’s SharedID, among a myriad of others. These solutions enable cross-domain targeting while giving publishers greater control over audience monetization.
4. Exploring IP-Based Tracking and Fingerprinting Where Viable
   Despite Google’s attempt to restrict the use of IP addresses, IPs (for the time being) remain a key tool for anti-fraud, geo-targeting, and contextual advertising. Many ad tech vendors still offer privacy-compliant fingerprinting solutions, and publishers should consider working with demand-side platforms (DSPs) and supply-side platforms (SSPs) that support IP-based audience targeting when relevant. Bear in mind IP targeting does have its short-comings in that its generally household based and not per-person based.
5. Partnering with Independent Ad Tech Vendors
   Google’s dominance means that publishers need to diversify their monetization stack. Working with independent ad tech vendors—such as alternative SSPs, curation platforms, and first-party data enablers—can help mitigate reliance on Google’s walled garden. Private marketplaces (PMPs) and programmatic direct deals offer publishers a way to monetize inventory without handing over control to Google.
6. Advocating for Fair Industry Standards
   Google’s selective enforcement of privacy measures puts independent publishers at a disadvantage. Industry groups, publishers, and regulators must continue to push back against Google’s self-serving policies. Organizations like the IAB Tech Lab, the W3C, and privacy advocacy groups should push for fairer standards that prevent Google from restricting access to data while maintaining a competitive edge for itself.
7. Investing in Contextual Targeting and AI-Driven Audience Insights
   With signals like IP addresses and cookies becoming less reliable, contextual targeting—which aligns ads with relevant content rather than tracking users—will become increasingly important. Additionally, AI-driven predictive modeling can help publishers understand user behavior, optimize yield, and improve ad relevance without violating privacy regulations.

The Bottom Line

Google’s recent changes aren’t about protecting users—they’re about protecting Google. If publishers want to survive in this evolving landscape, they must adapt by leveraging first-party data, alternative IDs, contextual targeting, and partnerships with independent ad tech vendors. The open web depends on it.

GrowthCode provides an addressability management platform that affordably and rapidly delivers identity graphs and supports a myriad of use cases like bid enrichment for safely monetizing the asset across the revenue portfolio. If you want to learn more about how we do this, how much it will cost, and stand up a proof-of-concept, reach out here.