An ad giant wants to buy the data pipes its rivals use.

Publicis’s proposed $2.2 billion purchase of LiveRamp would give one advertising group control of services its competitors use. The FTC wants conditions on access and confidential information before that ownership changes.

Publicis plans and buys advertising for clients. LiveRamp provides services that connect data used to reach audiences and measure advertising. Rival agencies rely on those services too.

The Federal Trade Commission’s concern is that the combination could give Publicis leverage over competitors. Its proposed agreement requires fair access and protections around customer information. The dispute reaches into a part of advertising most people never see: the services underneath the ad.

The customer can become dependent on a competitor

The FTC says that control could let Publicis steer LiveRamp customers toward its own media-agency business.

A market can have several agencies offering services while one owner controls an important part of what they need to operate. Counting competitors at the visible end of the chain can miss power held further back. That is what makes the proposed safeguards consequential.

The access question is also separate from the information question. A rival can receive a service and still need assurance that its confidential business data is protected. Protecting that information would not, on its own, prevent service from being delayed or degraded.

Read what the promises require

The proposed terms call for neutral access to LiveRamp’s standalone services on fair and reasonable terms. They address denial, degradation, delay and other impairment of access. Those are observable ways a service can become less useful without being shut off completely.

The proposal also requires barriers separating confidential LiveRamp customer data from Publicis. These are commonly called firewalls: rules and controls intended to keep information from passing into hands that should not use it. Their effectiveness depends on how the requirements work in practice.

An independent auditor would check compliance. That gives the promises a means of examination beyond the company’s own assurances. A monitor needs access to the relevant conduct and records for its findings to mean anything.

The proposal is one stage of the deal

The two commissioners voted to issue the complaint and accept the agreement for a 30-day public-comment period, ahead of final agency action.

There is also a limit to the promise for ordinary internet users. This remedy concerns competition and the protection of business information in the advertising chain. It is not a new blanket guarantee about every person’s online privacy.