You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I then went through all the partners listed there and found various gaps (No-Yes mismatch between the docs and the GVL 2.0) identified here: PBS Bidder TCF 2 Support - Docs.xlsx
It would be great to align the docs to what the IAB has listed (and if there are instances where the doc currently says Yes and that entity is owned by a parent company that is on the GVL 2.0 and I missed that, I appreciate seeing any of those instances).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks @agilfix - for the record, it's ultimately each bidders' responsibility to supply correct information in their Prebid metadata. We cannot police 394 bidders.
That said, since you made the effort of digging up some GVL IDs, I went ahead and added them. However, I didn't remove claimed gdpr_support from the entities without declared GVL IDs because there are like 150 entities falling into that category. We're not going to do the research necessary to find out whether they're listed in the GVL under a different name.
As noted in the PR, I also took the opportunity to clean up the TCF2 thing -- TCF1 is irrelevant now so there's only one variable -- 'gdpr_supported'. Also updated the full CSV data dump to change this and add a couple more columns.
I am creating this issue as - for example - I found that adot was listed with GDPR TCF 2 support here (https://docs.prebid.org/dev-docs/pbs-bidders.html#adot), but I can't find them in the GVL 2.0 https://iabeurope.eu/vendor-list-tcf-v2-0/.
I then went through all the partners listed there and found various gaps (No-Yes mismatch between the docs and the GVL 2.0) identified here:
PBS Bidder TCF 2 Support - Docs.xlsx
It would be great to align the docs to what the IAB has listed (and if there are instances where the doc currently says Yes and that entity is owned by a parent company that is on the GVL 2.0 and I missed that, I appreciate seeing any of those instances).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: