Cassidy avoids blowups in faceoff with RFK Jr.

This is less a market event than a legal and conversion-friction event. The economic impact sits in the “attention arbitrage” bucket: platforms and advertisers that can still maintain deterministic identity matching will see better ROI as cross-site tracking becomes harder, while pure ad-tech intermediaries face pressure from lower match rates and higher customer-acquisition costs. The second-order winner is any walled-garden ecosystem with authenticated first-party data; the loser is the long tail of ad exchanges and identity resolution vendors whose value prop weakens as opt-outs rise.

The practical risk horizon is months, not days. Privacy settings create a slow bleed in monetization rather than a single-quarter cliff, but opt-out persistence is fragile across browsers/devices, so effective enforcement is incomplete and uneven. That means the market will likely underprice the revenue mix shift for companies with heavy exposure to behavioral targeting until management guides to lower fill rates or weaker CPMs in a few reporting cycles.

Contrarian takeaway: consensus may overestimate how destructive this is to ad-supported models overall. In the near term, reduced third-party tracking can actually improve pricing power for incumbent large platforms with logged-in users because advertisers will consolidate spend where measurement is most reliable. The real vulnerability is not “digital ads” broadly, but the middle layer—vendors dependent on third-party cookies without proprietary identity graphs or first-party relationships.

For risk management, the key catalyst is regulatory normalization: if more states operationalize opt-in/opt-out standards and browser defaults tighten, the headwind compounds over 12-24 months. If, instead, platforms improve first-party measurement and clean-room solutions, the revenue hit may be mostly absorbed by the intermediary stack rather than the top-line of major ad sellers.