PC/
Articles/
2603003347
  • Open Access
  • Article

Global Web, Local Privacy? An International Review of Web Tracking

  • Harry Yu 1,†,‡,   
  • Patton Yin 2,†,‡,   
  • Sebastian Zimmeck 3,*

Received: 31 Dec 2025 | Revised: 11 Mar 2026 | Accepted: 17 Mar 2026 | Published: 24 Mar 2026

Abstract

Web tracking by ad networks, social networks, and other third parties is privacy-invasive. To protect users’ privacy, an increasing number of countries are adopting new privacy laws. However, a major reason why their application on the web is so challenging is that privacy laws are local while the web is global. To that end, we evaluate websites’ tracker connections for ten countries for two sets of sites—the global Common Top 525 and the Country-specific Top 525 sites. We find that Australia and the US (California)—two of the three opt-out jurisdictions in our study—have the highest level of web tracking while opt-in jurisdictions generally have lower levels. We also find that the Common Top 525 sites have 50.5% fewer average tracker connections when accessed from EU countries compared to non-EU countries. Further, simply not interacting with cookie banners decreases trackers by 48.5% for Germany, as measured for a sample of 36 Common Top 525 sites. These results suggest that the General Data Protection Regulation and the ePrivacy Directive have a tangible effect in reducing tracking. As 28% of Common Top 525 sites show cookie banners in all ten countries, our results suggest a moderate Brussels effect. However, against the backdrop of global US ad tech practices, EU law primarily acts as a Brussels shield. Generally, we think that strong enforcement of privacy laws is key to increase user privacy on the web.

References 

  • 1.

    Weinshel, B.; Wei, M.; Mondal, M.; et al. Oh, the Places You’ve Been! User Reactions to Longitudinal Transparency About Third-Party Web Tracking and Inferencing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, London, UK, 11–15 November 2019; pp. 149–166.

  • 2.

    Bujlow, T.; Carela-Espanol, V.; Sole-Pareta, J.; et al. A Survey on Web Tracking: Mechanisms, Implications, and Defenses. Proc. IEEE 2017, 105, 1476–1510.

  • 3.

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 4.

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 2009/136/EC of 25 November 2009 Amending Directive 2002/22/EC on Universal Service and Users’ Rights Relating to Electronic Communications Networks and Services, Directive 2002/58/EC Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector, and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Cooperation between National Authorities Responsible for the Enforcement of Consumer Protection Laws. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/136/oj/eng (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 5.

    Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES). About the LGPD. 2023. https://www.gov.br/capes/en/access-to-information/privacy-and-personal-data-protection/about-the-lgpd (accessed on 11
    March 2026).

  • 6.

    Korea Legislation Research Institute. Personal Information Protection Act. Korea Legislation Research InstituteWebsite. 2023. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng service/lawView.do?hseq=62389&lang=ENG (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 7.

    California Department of Justice. California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). California Department of Justice website. 2024. Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 8.

    Choi, H.; Park, J.; Jung, Y. The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 81, 42–51.

  • 9.

    Bradford, A. The Brussels Effect. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 2015, 107, 1–68.

  • 10.

    Privacy Tech Lab. Privacy-Pioneer-Web-Crawler. Available online: https://github.com/privacy-tech-lab/privacy-pioneer-webcrawler (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 11.

    Acar, G.; Juarez, M.; Nikiforakis, N.; et al. FPDetective: Dusting the Web for Fingerprinters. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), Berlin, Germany, 4–8 November 2013; pp. 1129–1140.

  • 12.

    Englehardt, S.; Narayanan, A. Online Tracking: A 1-million-site Measurement and Analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016; pp. 1388–1401.

  • 13.

    Englehardt, S.; Reisman, D.; Eubank, C.; et al. Cookies That Give You Away: The Surveillance Implications of Web Tracking. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), Florence, Italy, 18–22 May 2015; pp. 289–299.

  • 14.

    Roesner, F.; Kohno, T.; Wetherall, D. Detecting and Defending Against Third-Party Tracking on the Web. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, San Jose, CA, USA, 25–27 April 2012; pp. 155–168.

  • 15.

    Lerner, A.; Kornfeld Simpson, A.; Kohno, T.; et al. Internet Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Trackers: An Archaeological Study of Web Tracking from 1996 to 2016. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 10–12 August 2016; pp. 997–1013.

  • 16.

    Mayer, J.R.; Mitchell, J.C. Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Francisco, CA, USA, 20–23 May 2012; pp. 413–427.

  • 17.

    Disconnect, Inc. Disconnect Tracker Protection Lists. 2025. Available online: https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnecttracking-
    protection (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 18.

    Zimmeck, S.; Goldelman, D.; Kaplan, O.; et al. Website Data Transparency in the Browser. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Online, 15–20 July 2024; pp. 211–234.

  • 19.

    Degeling, M.; Utz, C.; Lentzsch, C.; et al. We Value Your Privacy · · · Now Take Some Cookies: Measuring the GDPR’s Impact on Web Privacy. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), San Diego, CA, USA, 24–27 February 2019.

  • 20.

    Sørensen, J.K.; Kosta, S. Before and After GDPR: The Changes in Third Party Presence at Public and Private European Websites. In Proceedings of The Web Conference (WWW ’19), San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019; pp. 1590–1600.

  • 21.

    Veale, M.; Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. Adtech and Real-Time Bidding under European Data Protection Law. Ger. Law J. 2022, 23, 226–256.

  • 22.

    Solomos, K.; Ilia, P.; Ioannidis, S.; et al. Clash of the Trackers: Measuring the Evolution of the Online Tracking Ecosystem. 2020. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.12860 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 23.

    Peukert, C.; Bechtold, S.; Batikas, M.; et al. European Privacy Law and Global Markets for Data. 2020. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000406601 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 24.

    Urban, T.; Tatang, D.; Degeling, M.; et al. Measuring the Impact of the GDPR on Data Sharing in Ad Networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (AsiaCCS ’20), Taipei, Taiwan, 5–9 October 2020; pp. 222–235.

  • 25.

    Leenes, R.; Kosta, E. Taming the Cookie Monster with Dutch Law—A Tale of Regulatory Failure. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2015, 31, 317–335.

  • 26.

    Court of Justice of the European Union. C-311/18, Data Protection Comm’r v. Facebook Ire. Ltd. & Schrems. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0311&from=EN (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 27.

    Rubinstein, I.; Margulies, P. Risk and Rights in Transatlantic Data Transfers: EU Privacy Law, U.S. Surveillance, and the Search for Common Ground. Conn. L. Rev. 2022, 54, 391–456.

  • 28.

    Birnhack, M.D.; Mundlak, G. The Brussels effect(s) and the rise of a privacy profession. Int. Data Priv. Law 2025, 15, 138–155.

  • 29.

    Dabrowski, A.; Merzdovnik, G.; Ullrich, J.; et al. Measuring Cookies and Web Privacy in a Post-GDPR World. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM 2019), Puerto Varas, Chile, 27–29 March 2019; Volume 11419, pp. 258–270.

  • 30.

    Trevisan, M.; Traverso, S.; Bassi, E.; et al. 4 Years of EU Cookie Law: Results and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs 2019), Online, 16–20 July 2019; pp. 126–145.

  • 31.

    Matte, C.; Bielova, N.; Santos, C. Do Cookie Banners Respect My Choice? Measuring Legal Compliance of Banners from IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P ’20), San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–21 May 2020; pp. 791–809.

  • 32.

    Bollinger, D.; Kubicek, K.; Cotrini, C.; et al. Automating Cookie Consent and GDPR Violation Detection. In Proceedings of the 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’22), Boston, MA, USA, 10–12 August 2022; pp. 2893–2910.

  • 33.

    Bouhoula, A.; Kubicek, K.; Zac, A.; et al. Automated Large-Scale Analysis of Cookie Notice Compliance. In Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’24), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 14–16 August 2024; pp. 1723–1739.

  • 34.

    Hils, M.; Woods, D.W.; B¨ohme, R. Measuring the Emergence of Consent Management on the Web. 2020. Available online: https://informationsecurity.uibk.ac.at/pdfs/HWB2020 Consent Management IMC.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 35.

    Machuletz, D.; B¨ohme, R. Multiple Purposes, Multiple Problems: A User Study of Consent Dialogs after GDPR. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs 2020), Virtual, 13–17 July 2020; pp. 481–498.

  • 36.

    Nouwens, M.; Kristensen, J.B.; Maalt, K.; et al. A Cross-Country Analysis of GDPR Cookie Banners and Flexible Methods for Scraping Them. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26 April–1 May 2025.

  • 37.

    Nouwens, M.; Liccardi, I.; Veale, M.; et al. Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020; pp. 1–13.

  • 38.

    Khandelwal, R.; Linden, T.; Harkous, H.; et al. PriSEC: A Privacy Settings Enforcement Controller. In Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium, Online, 11–13 August 2021; pp. 465–482.

  • 39.

    Hausladen, K.; Wang, O.; Eng, S.; et al. Websites’ Global Privacy Control Compliance at Scale and over Time. In Proceedings of the 34th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2025), Seattle, WA, USA, 13–15 August 2025; pp. 5837–5856.

  • 40.

    Zimmeck, S.; Wang, O.; Alicki, K.; et al. Usability and Enforceability of Global Privacy Control. In Proceedings of the 23rd Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2023), Lausanne, Switzerland, 10–15 July 2023; pp. 265–281.

  • 41.

    Rasaii, A.; Dao, H.; Feldmann, A.; et al. Intractable Cookie Crumbs: Unveiling the Nexus of Stateful Banner Interaction and Tracking Cookies. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2506.11947.

  • 42.

    IAB Europe. TCF—Transparency & Consent Framework. Available online: https://iabeurope.eu/transparency-consentframework/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 43.

    Zimmeck, S. Opting Out May Not Prevent Websites from Collecting Your Data. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 44.

    Tang, B.; Bui, D.; Shin, K.G. Navigating Cookie Consent Violations Across the Globe. In Proceedings of the 34th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, Seattle, WA, USA, 13–15 August 2025.

  • 45.

    Frankenreiter, J. Cost-Based California Effects. Yale J. Regul. 2022, 39, 1155–1217.

  • 46.

    Ogut, A.; Turanlioglu, B.; Metiner, D.C.; et al. Dissecting Privacy Perspectives of Websites Around the World: ”Aceptar Todo, Alle Akzeptieren, Accept All. . .” In Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Security Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 14–16 August 2024; pp. 2849–2863.

  • 47.

    Eijk, R.V.; Asghari, H.;Winter, P.; et al. The Impact of User Location on Cookie Notices (Inside and Outside of the European
    Union). arXiv 2021, arXiv:2110.09832.

  • 48.

    Bellman, S.; Johnson, E.J.; Kobrin, S.J.; et al. International Differences in Information Privacy Concerns: A Global Survey
    of Consumers. Available online: https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/CDS/1172.pdf (accessed
    on 11 March 2026).

  • 49.

    Fleming, P.; Bayliss, A.P.; Edwards, S.G.; et al. The role of personal data value, culture and self-construal in online privacy
    behaviour. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253568.

  • 50.

    Hua, J.; Wang, P. Cultural differences in privacy protection: A case study of DiDi privacy violations. Issues Inf. Syst. 2023, 24, 304–319.

  • 51.

    Xu, M.; Ziga Jug.; TamoLarrieux, A. A cross-cultural analysis of transparency: the interplay of law, privacy policies, and user perceptions. Int. Data Priv. Law 2024, 14, 197–222.

  • 52.

    Birrell, E.; Rodolitz, J.; Ding, A.; et al. SoK: Technical Implementation and Human Impact of Internet Privacy Regulations. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 May 2024; pp. 673–696.

  • 53.

    Solove, D.J. The Limitations of Privacy Rights. Notre Dame Law Rev. 2023, 98, 975–1036.

  • 54.

    Practical Law Canada Commercial Transactions. The Extra-Territorial Reach of PIPEDA: T. (A.) v. Globe24h.com. Available online: https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-005-9407?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 55.

    Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore. Advisory Guidelines on Key Concepts in the Personal Data Protection Act. Available online: https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/files/pdpc/pdf-files/advisory-guidelines/ag-on-key-concepts/advisoryguidelines-on-key-concepts-in-the-pdpa-17-may-2022.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 56.

    Personal Information Protection Commission. Guidelines on Applying the Personal Information Protection Act to Foreign Business Operators. Available online: https://www.pipc.go.kr/np/cop/bbs/selectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BS217&mCode=D010030000&nttId=10059 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 57.

    EUR-Lex. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2023. Meta Platforms Inc and Others v Bundeskartellamt. Request for a Preliminary Ruling from the Oberlandesgericht D¨usseldorf. 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0252 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 58.

    EUR-Lex. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019. Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande— Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Planet49 GmbH. Request for a Preliminary Ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62017CJ0673 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 59.

    Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.J. Personal data processing for behavioural targeting: which legal basis? Int. Data Priv. Law 2015, 5, 163–176.

  • 60.

    Autoridade Nacional de Protecao de Dados. Cookies e protecao de dados pessoais. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anpd/ptbr/centrais-de-conteudo/materiais-educativos-e-publicacoes/guia-orientativo-cookies-e-protecao-de-dados-pessoais.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 61.

    Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore. Advisory Guidelines on The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) for Selected Topics. Available online: https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/files/pdpc/pdf-files/advisory-guidelines/ag-on-selectedtopics/advisory-guidelines-on-the-pdpa-for-selected-topics-(revised-may-2024).pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 62.

    Information Regulator South Africa. Guidance Note on Direct Marketing. Available online: https://inforegulator.org.za/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/GUIDANCE-NOTE-ON-DIRECT-MARKETING-IN-TERMS-OF-THE-PROTECTION-OFPERSONAL-INFORMATION-ACT-4-OF-2013-POPIA.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 63.

    Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Tracking pixels and privacy obligations. Available online: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/organisations/trackingpixels-and-privacy-obligations (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 64.

    Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Guidelines on privacy and online behavioural advertising. Available online: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/online-privacy-tracking-cookies/tracking-andads/gl ba 1112/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 65.

    State of California Department of Justice. CCPA Enforcement Case Examples. Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa/enforcement (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 66.

    Verwaltungsgericht Hannover. Urt. v. 19.03.2025, Az.: 10 A 5385/22. Available online: https://voris.wolterskluweronline. de/browse/document/230df5cf-d76c-4561-9499-e44445a96f11 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 67.

    Agencia Espa˜nola de Proteccion de Datos. Procedimiento Nº: EXP202309901 (PS/00284/2024. Available online: https://www.aepd.es/documento/ps-00284-2024.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 68.

    CMS. GDPR Enforcement Tracker. Available online: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/?insights (accessed on 11March 2026).

  • 69.

    Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Landmark settlement of $50m from Meta for Australian users impacted by Cambridge Analytica incident. Available online: https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/landmark-settlement-of-$50m-from-meta-for-australian-users-impacted-by-cambridge-analytica-incident (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 70.

    Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Joint investigation of Facebook, Inc. by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. Available online: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opcactions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/2019/pipeda-2019-002/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 71.

    Werner, J. South Korea’s PIPC Fines Meta for Unauthorized Use of Sensitive Data and Privacy Violations. Available online: https://babl.ai/south-korea-pipc-fines-meta-for-unauthorized-use-of-sensitive-data-and-privacy-violations/ (accessed on 11
    March 2026).

  • 72.

    State of California Department of Justice. California Won’t Let It Go: Attorney General Bonta Announces $2.75 Million Settlement with Disney, Largest CCPA Settlement in California History. Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-wont-let-it-go-attorney-general-bonta-announces-275-million (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 73.

    State of California Department of Justice. Attorney General Bonta Announces Largest CCPA Settlement to Date, Secures $1.55 Million from Healthline.com. Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bontaannounces-largest-ccpa-settlement-date-secures-155 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 74.

    State of California Department of Justice. Attorney General Bonta Announces Settlement with Sephora as Part of Ongoing Enforcement of California Consumer Privacy Act. Available online: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-generalbonta-announces-settlement-sephora-part-ongoing-enforcement (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 75.

    Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. Connecticut, California and Colorado Announce Joint Investigative Privacy Sweep. Available online: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/connecticut-california-and-coloradoannounce-joint-investigative-privacy-sweep (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 76.

    California Privacy Protection Agency. Youth Sports Media Company to Pay $1.10 Million Fine, Change Practices Over Privacy Violations. Available online: https://privacy.ca.gov/2026/03/youth-sports-media-company-to-pay-1-1-million-finechange-practices-over-privacy-violations/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 77.

    California Privacy Protection Agency. Ford to Change Practices, Pay Fine for Adding Unnecessary Friction to Opt-Out Process. Available online: https://privacy.ca.gov/2026/03/ford-to-change-practices-pay-fine-for-adding-unnecessary-frictionto-opt-out-process/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 78.

    Luz, J.C.J. Lessons from Brazilian DPA sanctions to date. Available online: https://iapp.org/news/a/lessons-from-braziliandpa-sanctions-to-date (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 79.

    Le Pochat, V.; Van Goethem, T.; Tajalizadehkhoob, S.; et al. Tranco: A Research-Oriented Top Sites Ranking Hardened Against Manipulation. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1806.01156.

  • 80.

    Selenium Project. WebDriver. Available online: https://www.selenium.dev/documentation/webdriver/ (accessed on 11March 2026).

  • 81.

    Mozilla Support. Enhanced Tracking Protection in Firefox for Desktop. Available online: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 82.

    Oracle Corporation. MySQL Installer for Windows. Available online: https://dev.mysql.com/downloads/installer/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 83.

    BuiltWith Pty Ltd. BuiltWith Technology Lookup. Available online: https://builtwith.com/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 84.

    IAB Tech Lab. Global-Privacy-Platform. Available online: https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/Global-Privacy-Platform (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 85.

    Becerra, X. Available online: https://twitter.com/AGBecerra/status/1354850758236102656 (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 86.

    Colorado Department of Law. Universal Opt-Out Shortlist. Available online: https://coag.gov/uoom/ (accessed on 11March 2026).

  • 87.

    Office of the Attorney General. The Connecticut Data Privacy Act. Available online: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/sections/privacy/the-connecticut-data-privacy-act (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 88.

    New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. New Jersey Data Privacy Law FAQs. Available online: https://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/ocp/Pages/NJ-Data-Privacy-Law-FAQ.aspx (accessed on 11March 2026).

  • 89.

    Oregon Department of Justice. Consumer Privacy. Available online: https://www.doj.state.or.us/consumer-protection/idtheft-data-breaches/privacy/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).

  • 90.

    European Commission. Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-omnibus-regulation-proposal (accessed on 11 March 2026).

Share this article:
Download PDF
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Yu, H.; Yin, P.; Zimmeck, S. Global Web, Local Privacy? An International Review of Web Tracking. Pragmatic Cybersecurity 2026, 1 (1), 5.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.