Ability to pass non-covered on deals

[patmmccann]

74 mentions this but was mostly about a different concern. This issue is a part of that now closed issue.

IAB MSPA implementation guidelines say a transaction can be both covered in the open market and non-covered in deals (https://www.iabprivacy.com/IAB MSPA Technical Signaling Implementation Guidelines v1.0.pdf).

Relevant section is 3.4 a ii

This suggests the need for a second string or some sort of 'ignore this part of the usnat string' on the pmp object of the ortb2.6 bid request.

I propose perhaps pmp.deal.ext.mspacovered = 0 if the deal terms override the coverage flag in the usnat string in regs.gpp

[AramZS]

I think maybe the wording about covered vs non-covered in the MSPA and the likelihood that sellers will have to establish separate agreements with more than one vendor implies that perhaps we need a signal for the transaction being covered by an agreement, regardless of if it is MSPA or not. Perhaps as a separate signal. It would make it clear what we need here, that each partner in the transaction is known to each other and has an agreement with each other that could theoretically be audited.

[bmayd]

In the last Global Privacy Working Group meeting we discussed this briefly. A point was made by someone (not recalling who) worth noting: no one should be working with a partner without some sort of agreement, so it is implicit in a transaction that the transacting parties are known to each other and have an agreement.

I believe the MSPA guidelines assume transactions are covered by an agreement and the purpose of indicating whether a transaction is MSPA covered is to allow partners, who may otherwise be subject to the MSPA, to indicate that a transaction is governed by an alternate agreement.

[patmmccann]

@bmayd this is not the interpretation IAB legal affairs articulated to me, covered doesn't just mean by some agreement, but specifically by the mspa, and a publisher may wish to convey to a non-signatory party that the deal is non-covered so that it would not be suppressed by a middleman or a bidder that ignores covered transactions

[bmayd]

Thanks for clarifying. Rereading #74 also helped. It looks like what you originally proposed would address the issue.