Dr. Tobias Kircher, research assistant at the TUM School of Management on the Heilbronn campus, did just that. “The cookie banner asks us whether we want to allow hundreds of third-party providers to track us – i.e., to record and evaluate how long we stay on the site and what we click on,” reports the postdoctoral researcher. "This made me wonder: Why is it that even on simple websites, we are asked to share personal data with so many third parties? I wanted to investigate whether cookie banners could simply be abolished.“

This would require a complete ban on tracking. The advantages are obvious: ”Tracking restricts freedom. People feel monitored and use Google less often than they would like to. They don’t search for everything they actually want to find." There is also another danger: “Personalized advertising, which would not be possible without tracking, can influence our shopping behavior. We become victims of advertising campaigns and buy useless stuff. We spend more money than we actually want to.” Children are particularly easy to influence. That is why Kircher is in favor of banning tracking for children and other particularly vulnerable groups, which is already the case in the US and the EU.

A third fewer apps

Why should policymaker still think over a prohibition of tracking? On the one hand, because of the potential economic consequences: "It would lead to a dramatic decline in apps. There would be about a third fewer apps. The quality of digital offerings such as YouTube videos, smartphone applications, and news articles would also suffer. And we would have to expect significantly more advertisements.“ Kircher explains the latter effect by pointing out that non-personalized ads are clicked on less frequently. This would lead to a decrease in advertising revenue. “Companies would have to compensate for this loss by increasing the frequency of advertising.” A disadvantage that should not be underestimated, because who wants to be constantly interrupted by ads while watching Netflix?

But the effects could be even more serious: “A complete ban would hinder economic growth and innovation. This would cost jobs, as a large number of app developers would disappear from the market. If the business model of app developers were no longer viable, fewer ad-supported start-ups would be founded. A tracking ban would therefore also mean a loss of entrepreneurship.”

What tracking has to do with democracy and education

Tracking by third parties who are not operators of the website visited also has political significance. “Newspapers with their diverse readership benefit most from this: if they understand users’ interests and consumption habits better, they can sell their ads at a higher price and generate more revenue. The economic well-being of news providers is socially relevant because they play a central role in democracy.”

A complete tracking ban could even have a negative impact on educational opportunities: In one of his studies, Kircher examined educational videos on YouTube. His finding: since Google implemented a ban on targeted advertising at children on the video platform in 2020 in response to legal requirements, fewer educational videos for children have been made available. “YouTube is a unique source of knowledge, especially for young children who are not yet able to use learning apps and are not yet in school,” says Kircher. Older students can also use it to review or deepen their knowledge of classroom content.

Various approaches

But which solution would preserve the advantages of tracking while limiting its risks? “Tracking could perhaps only be prohibited where a ban would not cause serious disadvantages,” suggests Kircher. On YouTube, for example, profiling – i.e., personalized advertising and content recommendations based on self-collected data – could be restricted. “New technologies may also emerge in the future to replace tracking,” adds Kircher. However, there is currently no technology in sight that is similarly effective and at the same time less intrusive.

So perhaps the status quo is not so bad after all: "A good compromise solution is the current middle ground – obtaining consent for tracking via the cookie banner. This allows everyone to decide for themselves whether they want to share their data or not. The right to informational self-determination is preserved." The cookie banner is therefore likely to remain with us for quite some time. As annoying as it may be at times, there are no real alternatives in sight.