Google has strong armed the web in other situations with Chrome, there are multiple cases of them implementing things that google has proposed to w3c but has not been accepted yet.

Regarding this, it's been 4 years. I am not letting google off the hook with this, especially when many other browsers already block third party cookies.

I stand by my opinion that an ad company operating a browser is a clear conflict of interest. If they didn't, this "privacy" feature would never have been a thing and this would have been done years ago.

> there are multiple cases of them implementing things that google has proposed to w3c but has not been accepted yet.

Yes but the question is why is anyone using those things when they are only supported in a single browser? If its not fully supported by the major 4 browsers then its not getting put in my code, simple.

But isn't that a direct by-product of Chrome being owned by Google.

If Chrome was made by an independent company regulators couldn't care less if they disabled third party cookies.

We honestly can't know whether the regulators would care, or whether they would be making different decisions.

But that counterfactual seems totally irrelevant to the claims the GP was making?

We actually do since other browsers have blocked third party cookies for a several years now.

The question that you need to ask is why they desperately want to get rid of them.

The answert is that the solution they are proposing hinders other ad compnies and give google unfair advantage in the ad space. Hence the they are not allowed to do for competition reasons.

Who regulates 3rd party cookies (aside from Warren G)?

In this specific instance, as the article says, the delay is because the CMA (the UK competition authority) needs more time to evalute the feedback from Google's competitors on the proposal.

But regulators from both the US and the EU have made similar statements.