Google TCF v2.0 Error Report

The document is being updated as we get more details on Google’s TCF implementation and monitoring.

On August 15, 2020, IAB Transparency and Consent Framework fully migrated from version 1.1 to version 2.0. 

At the same time, Google joined TCF v2.0 as a vendor and started monitoring publisher compliance with TCF Policies. The results of this monitoring are presented in TCF error reports in AdSense and Ad Manager accounts.

Most publisher accounts would have some errors flagged in their TCF error report. For example, content served from cache or 3rd party services might result in Google not recognizing the domain or the TC string being out-of-date. Also different sporadic network errors or client side javascript blocking (i.e. AdBlock) may cause the errors.

Google TCF v2.0 Error Report shows the total number of errors happened during the last 7 days with the date specifying when the last error was registered.

For this reason, it is important to compare the number of events in the report with the 7-day impression average, and investigate errors that cover a meaningful share of impressions. 

The most common issues highlighted in the report are the following.

Error	Description	Comment
Unknown domain	Ad requests detected from a domain that is not registered in the account.	A small percentage of such requests is normal, as some users can access the site’s content from caches of 3rd party web services.
Error 1.1	Google, as a vendor, is not allowed under consent or legitimate interest.	Google couldn’t detect consent or legitimate interest signals. This could be a result of an outdated CMP configuration, or a user intentionally rejecting Google as a vendor.
Error 2.1a	Tag or SDK isn’t receiving a TC string due to CMP status being stub, loading, or error.	The most common reason is ads being requested before the user decision was made. If you are using Clickio CMP with “Pause ads while the user is choosing” setting enabled, but are still receiving this error, refer to this troubleshooting guide. If you are using another CMP, check how to implement ad pausing with the vendor.
Error 3.2	The TC string was created more than 13 months ago.	No longer used, may be ignored.
Error 3.3	The TC string last updated date was more than 13 months ago.	Clickio CMP will show the consent popup short before the 13 months expiration time to keep the data up to date, but for optimization reasons ads are not paused for users with already expired TC strings while the popup is shown (if the user has not visited the site for long), so small (compared to total traffic numbers) amounts of the error are expected. The behavior is a subject to change without prior notice.
Error 5.2	Globally-scoped TC string.	Clickio CMP only obtains service-specific consent, in compliance with Google’s interpretation of GDPR. If you are using another CMP, instruct it to collect service-specific consent instead of global consent.
Error 8.1	Additional Consent (AC) string string is not using the version separator (~).	Google AC string is stored separately from the TC string by the Clickio CMP and is injected into the TCF API responses during runtime. Storage format is different from the default Google format and it is converted on the fly. If you have significant numbers of the error, please contact Clickio support.
Error 8.2	Additional Consent (AC) string string contains a vendor list that doesn't follow the expected formatting (list of int64s separated by ' . ')	Same as for Error 8.1

More information on errors can be found in Google's TCF v2 troubleshooting guide. Please contact Clickio support if you have more questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

I received a TCF error notification from Google. Did it happen because Clickio updated the Consent tool?

Google started monitoring TCF compliance from August 15, after joining TCF. Because of this, publishers started to receive notifications. Before this, Google was not a part of TCF and did not conduct any checks.

Clickio, as other CMP vendors, upgraded the consent solution to comply with the new version of TCF at about the same time. 

What is IAB Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF)?

In order to make the GDPR compliance process coherent across the market, IAB Europe developed the “Transparency and Consent Framework”; a standard to easily collect consent from users and share it with the rest of the supply chain.

According to IAB, there are three kinds of companies involved in the process: publishers, vendors (tech providers such as DSPs, SSPs, DMPs, ad servers etc.) and CMPs (Consent Management Provider, i.e. companies that can read and/or set a user’s consent status for the vendors chosen by a website operator, and share this information within the advertising ecosystem).

By applying this framework, publishers can inform their users of what data is being collected, what vendors are going to use it and why. For each one of these items, users can give or deny consent, and their choice can then be shared with other players in the advertising market.

What is IAB Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF) v2.0?

In August last year, IAB Europe announced the launch of the Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF) v2.0, the second version of the framework. This resulted from a 12-month review period, during which IAB collected and implemented feedback from all sectors of the digital advertising industry (notably publishers), and had meetings with Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) throughout Europe.

Among the main updates of TCF v2.0 there’s now the possibility for consumers to authorize or deny consent, as well as to exercise the “right to object” for their data to be processed. Also, consumers now have more control over whether and how vendors can use certain features of data processing, such as precise geolocation.

TCF v2.0 provides benefits to publishers too, giving them more control and flexibility on how to integrate and collaborate with their tech partners. For example, now publishers can manage data processing purposes on a vendor-basis. Furthermore, they can ensure more transparency for users, thanks to the introduction of more clear and detailed purposes for data processing and a higher flexibility in the way these purposes are described.