Has DuckDuckGo ever been criticized for data sharing?
Executive summary
Critics and researchers have repeatedly flagged occasions where DuckDuckGo’s privacy promises appeared weaker in practice — most notably a 2022 finding that Microsoft-owned tracking scripts could still communicate when using DuckDuckGo’s browser (WIRED reporting on researcher Zach Edwards) [1]. DuckDuckGo’s own privacy policy emphasizes it does not store identifiable search histories and says ad clicks are handled by Microsoft without creating user profiles, but independent analyses and blog reporting since 2022 continue to raise concerns about third‑party relationships and corner‑case data exposure [2] [1] [3].
1. The headline criticism: Microsoft trackers in DuckDuckGo’s browser
The clearest, widely cited instance of criticism came in 2022 when privacy researcher Zach Edwards showed that Microsoft-placed tracking scripts on certain sites (example: Workplace.com) continued to communicate with Microsoft-owned domains even when those sites were loaded in the DuckDuckGo browser; WIRED documented this discovery and noted it dented DuckDuckGo’s reputation as a privacy-preserving firm [1]. That reporting prompted scrutiny because it suggested business partnerships and embedded third‑party scripts could undercut some browser protections [1].
2. DuckDuckGo’s official posture: limited data, anonymous sharing for functionality
DuckDuckGo’s public privacy policy states the company does not retain search or browsing histories tied to users and therefore cannot provide such histories in legal requests; it also says some anonymous technical information (like device/browser types) is shared with hosting and content providers for functionality, and that Microsoft manages ad clicks with commitments not to create user profiles beyond accounting purposes [2]. DuckDuckGo presents this as a fundamental safeguard: minimal data collection reduces the value of any potential sharing [2].
3. Independent reviewers and follow‑on coverage: nuance, not binary
Multiple independent reviews and privacy commentators find DuckDuckGo useful for reducing tracking but warn it is not an absolute privacy panacea. PrivacyJournal and Norton both note DuckDuckGo avoids long‑term profiles and that the company has not had major public hacks, but they also highlight third‑party relationships (Apple Maps, ad networks) and past instances where tracking could occur as reasons users with “high anonymity requirements” should consider additional protections [3] [4]. That reporting frames DuckDuckGo as a privacy‑improving choice rather than perfect privacy isolation [3] [4].
4. Persistent themes in criticism: third parties, local storage, and edge cases
Reporting and analysis since 2022 point to recurring technical issues: leakage via browser URLs or local device storage, exposure when sites use outdated web technologies, and the practical reality that third‑party scripts or partnerships can introduce tracking vectors even if DuckDuckGo itself claims not to collect data [5] [6] [3]. Some blog posts and watchdog pieces emphasize these edge cases to argue DuckDuckGo "can’t be trusted" in every scenario, while mainstream reviewers treat them as limitations users should weigh [7] [5] [3].
5. Competing perspectives: pure privacy promises vs. pragmatic product tradeoffs
Advocates point to DuckDuckGo’s minimalist data collection and policy commitments — including inability to supply user-linked histories — as solid privacy architecture [2]. Critics counter that partnerships (e.g., ad networks, mapping providers, or browser rendering behaviors) and discovered technical flows show real-world gaps that matter to some users; niche technical findings have been amplified by blog posts calling into question the company’s marketing [1] [5] [8]. Both perspectives use the same set of facts: limited internal collection plus external integrations that can leak or expose signals in certain situations [2] [1] [3].
6. What available sources do and do not say (limitations)
Available sources document the Microsoft‑tracker incident and note other technical weaknesses or local storage behaviors that could reveal traces on devices [1] [6]. Sources do not provide evidence in this collection of DuckDuckGo deliberately selling personal user data or being forced to hand over tied search histories — in fact, DuckDuckGo’s policy stresses it cannot do so because it does not retain them [2]. Broader claims that DuckDuckGo “can’t be trusted” are present in opinionated blog posts but are not uniformly supported across mainstream technical reviews [7] [3].
7. Practical takeaway for users deciding whether to trust DuckDuckGo
If your threat model is to minimize routine advertising and cross‑site profiling, DuckDuckGo offers meaningful protections through limited data retention and privacy features; reviewers like Norton and PrivacyJournal call it a valid alternative while recommending extra layers (VPNs, careful extension choices) for high‑anonymity needs [4] [3]. If you require ironclad guarantees against any third‑party script exfiltration or institutional partnerships, available reporting shows there have been concrete technical lapses and policy edge cases you should evaluate before relying on DuckDuckGo alone [1] [5].
Sources cited: WIRED (reporting Zach Edwards) [1]; DuckDuckGo privacy policy [2]; PrivacyJournal review [3]; Norton explainer [4]; assorted critical/blog posts [5] [6] [7] [8].