Submit an entity
The corpus is deliberately small and grows by hand. Everything on it had to be found, read, quoted, dated and archived, so a suggestion that comes with a document is worth ten that come with a name.
What belongs here
Anything on the ad-data chain — the route between behaviour being generated and an advert being aimed at a person:
| Layer | What sits here |
|---|---|
| Platforms | Social and search. Where the behaviour is generated. |
| Retail media | Supermarket and retailer ad networks. Where the till joins the browser. |
| Publishers | News and content sites running their own first-party graphs. |
| Adtech | Exchanges, DSPs, SSPs and CDPs. The plumbing between the two ends. |
| Brokers | Data brokers and list vendors. Buying and selling is the product. |
| Identity graphs | Cross-device and offline-to-online resolution. Where you stop being anonymous. |
The most useful submissions are the ones nobody thinks of as advertising companies: the loyalty scheme, the payments processor, the analytics vendor embedded in a checkout. Platforms are well covered by everybody. The middle of the chain is not.
Any jurisdiction is in scope — the corpus currently reads UK-jurisdiction documents first, but that is where it started, not where it stops. Say which jurisdiction your document covers; each entry records it.
What makes a submission usable
A name alone is a research task. A name with these is a verdict:
- A URL to the operative document — the privacy policy, ads policy, loyalty terms or preferences dashboard.
- The sentence that matters, quoted, with enough of the paragraph around it to be read fairly.
- The date you read it. Documents move.
- Which axis it speaks to — what refusing costs you, who receives you, or whether the refusal covers everything.
If a page took you a while to find, say how you found it. Named-partner lists in particular are often unlinked from the policy that refers to them, and the route to one is itself a finding worth recording.
What cannot be used
- Screenshots of a document, without the document. Every clause here is checkable against an archived copy; an image cannot be.
- Anything under NDA, or anything from inside a company.This site grades what companies published. Publishing something they did not would end that, and would put the person who sent it at risk.
- Your own account data, or anybody else's. A DSAR response can establish a great deal, but send the finding rather than the file — those documents are full of you.
- What a company told you privately. Useful context, not publishable evidence. It may become one via right of reply, on the record.
How to send it
Submissions are not acknowledged individually. If one becomes a verdict it appears on the scoreboard, and the clause you sent will be quoted with its own source and date.