In 2022, Google began changing the availability of the information available in User-Agent strings across their Chromium browsers. The change is to use the set of HTTP request header fields called Client Hints. Through this process, a server can request, and if approved by the client, receive information that would have been previously freely available in the User-Agent string. This change is likely to have an impact on publishers across the open web that may use User-Agent information today.
To explain what this change means, how it will impact the AdTech industry, and what you can do to prepare, we spoke with Nate West, our Director of Product.
What is the difference between User-Agents and Client Hints?
A User-Agent (UA) is a string, or line of text, that identifies information about a web server’s browser and operating system. For example, it can indicate if a device is on Safari on a Mac or Chrome on Windows.
Here is an example UA string from a Mac laptop running Chrome:

To limit the passive fingerprinting of users, Google is reducing components of the UA strings in their Chromium browsers and introducing Client Hints. When there is a trusted relationship between first-party domain owners and third-party servers, Client Hints can be used to share the same data.
This transition began in early 2022 with bigger expected changes beginning in February 2023. You can see in the above example, Chrome/109.0.0.0, where browser version information is already no longer available from the UA string on this desktop Chrome browser.
How can you use User-Agent device attributes today?
UA string information can be used for a variety of reasons. It is a component in web servers that has been available for decades. In the AdTech space, it can be used in various ad targeting use cases. It can be used by publishers to better understand their audience. The shift to limit access and information shared is to prevent nefarious usage of the data.
What are the benefits of Client Hints?
By using Client Hints, a domain owner, or publisher, can manage access to data activity that occurs on their web properties. Having that control may be advantageous. The format of the information shared is also cleaner than parsing a string from User-Agents. Although, given that Client Hints are not the norm across all browsers, a long-term solution may be needed to manage UA strings and Client Hints.
An advantage of capturing and sharing Client Hint information is to be prepared and understand if there is any impact to your systems and processes. This will help with the currently planned transition by Google, but also should the full UA string become further restricted.
Who will be impacted by this change?
Publishers across the open web should lean in to understand this change and any potential impact to them. The programmatic ecosystem supporting real-time bidding (RTB) needs to continue pushing for adoption of OpenRTB 2.6, which supports the passing of client hint information in place of data from UA strings.
What is Google’s timeline for implementing Client Hints?

Do businesses have to implement Client Hints? What happens if they don’t?
Not capturing and sharing with trusted partners can impact capabilities in place today. Given Chromium browsers account for a sizable portion of web traffic, the impact will vary for each publisher and tech company in the ecosystem. I would assess how UA strings are in use today, where you may have security concerns or not, and look to get more information on how to maintain data sharing with trusted partners.
We can help you adopt Client Hints
Reach out to our Customer Success team at tapadcustomersuccess@experian.com to explore the best options to handle the User-Agent changes and implement Client Hints. As leaders in the AdTech space, we’re here to help you successfully make this transition. Together we can review the options available to put you and your team on the best path forward.
About our expert

Nate West, Director of Product
Nate West joined Experian in 2022 as the Director of Product for our identity graph. Nate focuses on making sure our partners maintain and grow identity resolution solutions today in an ever-changing future state. He has over a decade of experience working for media organizations and AdTech platforms.
Latest posts

Whether it’s a result of the sky rocketing costs of razor blades, the increasing popularity of Movember or a general trend among Hollywood’s leading men to sport some scruff, it seems that facial hair hasn’t been this en vogue since the mid-70s. Whether you love it or hate it, shaving is big business and any rise in beardedness can shave significant revenue from the bottom lines of companies catering to men’s grooming products. As proof, CPG giant Proctor & Gamble recently announced that its second-quarter earnings were negatively impacted due to the growing preference among men for mustaches and beards. For years, Experian Marketing Services has been measuring the grooming habits of men for marketers via our trusted Simmons National Consumer Study and a recent analysis of the data shows a slight, yet clear, decline in the use of shaving products and an increase in the percent of men sporting facial hair in recent years, especially among the younger demographic. According to our estimates, 17 percent of all men and 35 percent of young men ages 18 to 24 have facial hair today, up from 14 percent and 31 percent, respectively, since 2009. That said, most men with facial hair at least occasionally use shaving products, like shaving cream, disposable razors, razor blades or electric shavers. In fact, the vast majority of all guys (94 percent) still use at least some shaving products, and that number has remained virtually unchanged in recent years. There is, however, a sizable and growing share of young men who are going all wooly mammoth and steering clear of shaving products all together. Specifically, 15 percent of men ages 18 to 24 today say they don’t use any shaving products up from 13 percent in 2009. As younger men’s beards fill in and they move into more professional occupations, most are likely to throw in the (hot) towel and pick up a razor, as evidenced by the fact that only 5 percent of men in the next-oldest age bracket (25 to 34) don’t shave. But the growing bearded trend among young men is hair raising nonetheless. Another trend worth monitoring is the declining frequency of use of shaving products overall, which clearly reflects the increasing popularity of the two-, three- or five-day beard. Among the 67 percent of all men who use shaving cream, for instance, less than a third (29 percent) say they use it seven times a week or more often (the equivalent of a daily shave). On average, men today use shaving cream only 4.3 times per week down from 4.5 times per week in 2009. Young men use shaving cream only 3.3 times a week on average, down from 3.6 times in 2009. Frequency of use is also down among the 36 percent of men who use an electric razor, a popular grooming tool for bearded men who wish to keep things a bit more tame. In fact, just 27 percent of men in the electric razor set say they use it seven or more times a week. On average men use an electric razor 3.7 times per week, down from 4.0 times per week in 2009. On the bright side, Proctor & Gamble, in their latest earnings report, said that despite bad news for their facial hair business, they see potential to offset losses with the increasing popularity of body-shaving by men. And they may have a point. Based on 52-week trend data from our Hitwise online search intelligence tool, searches for “manscaping,” a modern term used to refer to the shaving or trimming of excess body hair, are up a relative 14 percent in the past year.

Once upon a time, the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) was primarily focused on their company’s branding efforts. They spent a lot of time thinking about things like look and feel, messaging, ad buys and what their competitors were up to. Of course, those are all still important components of a CMO’s job description, but the role has changed – expanded, really – over the last five or so years. The ongoing proliferation of devices in the hands of empowered consumers requires that CMOs understand things like consumer behavior, channel and device preference, triggered messaging and much more. They must have expertise in various technologies, real-time analytics and, oftentimes, be change agents who move their organizations toward a more customer-centric business model. Today’s CMO must know how their customers want to interact with their brand, then build messaging and execute campaigns that create engagement and ensure ongoing brand advocacy. In a newly published predictions piece: “#7for14: Seven ways digital marketing will change in 2014” several of Experian Marketing Services’ leaders weigh in on the changing role of today’s marketing heads. Check out prediction #1 – Challenges of the CMO and prediction #6 – The CMO as technologist to see more.

CASL will come into force in phases starting July 1, 2014 The information below should not be considered legal advice. Please consult with appropriate legal counsel before relying upon the compliance information provided below. As of December 2013 both regulators responsible for implementing Canada’s Anti-Spam Law have finalized their regulations. Industry Canada’s guidelines confirm all but one of the expected exemptions, provide needed clarifications to key requirements and delay implementation of the more controversial aspects of the law. Over the past two years we have been updating you on CASL’s developments and efforts by industry groups to address unclear or onerous aspects of its proposed regulations. With Industry Canada confirming all but one expected exemptions and providing detailed guidance in its Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, marketers should now have an easier time preparing. Here is a summary of key points for Industry Canada’s final regulations: i. CASL will be implemented in three phases: a. The majority of CASL comes into force July 1, 2014; b. The rules that apply to computer programs will come into force January 15, 2015; and c. The private right of action takes effect on July 1, 2017. ii. Industry Canada has provided interpretive guidance on several issues under CASL, including: a. The definition of a "CEM"; b. The application of CASL to express consent obtained before CASL comes into force; c. The application of CASL to IP addresses and cookies; and d. The interaction between the unsubscribe requirement and implied consent. iii. New exceptions have been added for: a. Closed platforms, which would appear to apply to platforms such as BlackBerry Messenger and social medial networks; b. Limited-access accounts, where organizations communicate directly with recipients (e.g., online banking); c. Messages targeted at foreign persons; and d. Fundraising by charities and political parties. A surprising exclusion of the ‘Reasonable Knowledge’ exemption In its draft regulations, Industry Canada sought to exempt foreign senders in instances where the sender could not reasonably know that the message would be received in Canada, particularly when the recipient does not typically access email within Canada or through Canadian systems.[1] However, in its final rulemaking the Department chose to nix this exemption as “unnecessary,” choosing instead to exempt messages routed through Canada into a foreign state. [2] This omission may create challenges for marketers in situations where it’s not possible or practical to collect country of origin information.[3] We expect further clarification on this concern from Canadian regulators in the coming months. For detailed information please visit the Canadian Government’s informational website. For summary information please see the following links: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=798829 http://blog.deliverability.com/2013/12/canadas-anti-spam-law-casl-is-now-a-done-deal.html http://www.cauce.org/2013/12/canadas-anti-spam-law-coming-into-force-june-2014.html If you would like to discuss CASL’s email-related issues, please email us at digitalprivacy@experian.com or reach out to us through your account teams. [1] Archived http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-01-05/html/reg1-eng.html [2] See Limited Exclusions section of Industry Canada’s Regulatory Risk Impact Assessment, http://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/00271.html [3] If a consumer uses a global inbox provider like Google a sender will be challenged to determine where the email is accessed. And since reverse IP geo-location records may be outdated or inaccurate, new technologies and customer self-identification processes may be needed.