Yes, but they're lying when they do so. What's required legally, and the industry-wide standards that are currently in place are both insufficient. Adhering to them is great, but companies doing so cannot reasonably be characterized as being defenders of privacy if that's all they're doing.
From your perspective, yes they are definitely lying. From their perspective they've implemented a pro-privacy feature and advertise it and their company as doing so. I'm not saying either side is 100% correct, but there are two sides. The industry groups call something like the below pro-privacy and adtech/pubs do the same.
> From their perspective they've implemented a pro-privacy feature and advertise it and their company as doing so.
If that were the specific claim they made, I wouldn't call them lying. But I was talking about Liveramp specifically, and they're making claims well beyond that -- they're claiming that they're actually defenders of privacy. That's a straight-up lie.
I keep a close eye on the adtech/martech world ("know your enemy"), and it's clear that on the whole they've managed to reframe the issue in their own minds in a way that is favorable to them (mostly by doing what Facebook is doing: considering themselves as "pro-privacy" by defending the data they collect against outside attackers and abuse rather than considering their own collection and data use).
I don't think they're lying when they do this, I think they've managed to delude themselves in the way that salespeople often do: by convincing themselves that the lie is actually true. It's not lying, after all, if you believe it.
But Liveramp has elevated this to a level that I believe is intentionally deceptive.
