Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TCF restrictions for server-side bidders #12084

Open
bretg opened this issue Aug 2, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

TCF restrictions for server-side bidders #12084

bretg opened this issue Aug 2, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@bretg
Copy link
Collaborator

bretg commented Aug 2, 2024

Type of issue

feature request

Description

Moving a PBJS bidder server-side can result in TCF2 fetchBids errors in PBJS -- those bidders are removed from the auction.

The issue is that PBJS doesn't know the GVL ID when there's no client-side adapter. The way to solve it is to add a gvlMapping, but this is kind of a pain -- when the pub wants to push a bidder server-side, they have to remember to look up each GVL ID and add it to the gvlMapping.

The proposal is to add a deferS2Sbidders flag to the TCF Control module for basicAds” (Purpose 2). We discussed doing this for other purposes, but decided that the only known problem is when PBJS completely suppresses the auction. The proposal is that we start with the known problem and enhance to refine when those use cases are defined.

Proposed config:

 pbjs.setConfig({
   consentManagement: {
     gdpr: {
       cmpApi: 'iab',   // activates the enforcement module
       defaultGdprScope: true,
       rules: [{
         purpose: "basicAds",
         enforcePurpose: true,
         enforceVendor: true,
         deferS2Sbidders: true         // default is false
       },{
         purpose: "personalizedAds",
         enforcePurpose: true,
         enforceVendor: true
       },{
         purpose: "transmitPreciseGeo",
         enforcePurpose: true,
         enforceVendor: true
       },{

Then before the module rejects the auction for server-side bidders, it would check this flag.

@bretg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bretg commented Aug 14, 2024

Updated per committee discussion

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Ready for Dev
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant