Facebook Ad-Free Subscription: Is It Fair to Pay for Online Privacy?

The European Commission has flagged Facebook's parent company, Meta, for potentially violating EU laws with its new "pay or consent" advertising model. Under this system, EU users must either agree to receive personalised ads or pay €12.99 (£11) per month to avoid them. The Commission has expressed a preliminary view that this choice does not align with the requirements of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The DMA aims to regulate the conduct of major digital platforms to promote fairness, competition, and innovation. As a crucial element of the European digital strategy, it looks to establish a more balanced online environment.

Meta argues that its model adheres to the DMA, with a spokesperson claiming, "Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA." However, the European Commission says that the DMA requires users who opt out of personalised ads to still have access to a service that uses less personal data, which Meta's current model does not fully provide.

The potential ramifications for Meta could include a fine of up to 10% of its global revenue if it is determined to be in breach of the DMA. This scrutiny follows a similar case involving Apple, which was recently accused of breaching the DMA over its App Store practices.

Meta's approach has raised concerns among European data watchdogs, prompting the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to recommend that platforms provide additional alternatives for users. Despite Meta's attempt to address these concerns by lowering its subscription fee from €9.99 to €5.99, the Commission remains unconvinced that users are presented with a genuine choice.

What Is The European Commission’s Stance?

The European Commission has recently informed Meta of its preliminary assessment that the company's "pay or consent" advertising model may not align with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). According to the Commission, this model does not fully comply with DMA requirements, as it fails to provide a genuine alternative for users who decline to accept personalised ads.

The Commission's initial findings suggest that this approach does not meet the standards set by Article 5(2) of the DMA for the following reasons:

• Users who choose not to receive personalised ads are not provided with an equally functional but less data-intensive version of the service.

• The model does not adequately respect users' rights to freely decide how their personal data is used.

The DMA requires that major digital platforms, or gatekeepers, must seek user consent for combining personal data across services. If users refuse this consent, they should still have access to a service that uses less personal data but offers comparable functionality.

Meta now has the chance to review and respond to the Commission's preliminary findings. The Commission's full investigation, which commenced on 25th March 2024, is set to be completed within a year. If Meta's model is found to breach the DMA, the company could face fines of up to 10% of its global revenue, with potential increases to 20% for repeated violations. Additionally, persistent non-compliance could lead to further actions such as requiring Meta to divest certain parts of its business or restricting its ability to acquire new services.

The Commission remains in dialogue with Meta to ensure the company aligns with DMA regulations. 

Is Paying for Online Privacy a Fair Trade-Off?

The debate over whether it's fair to pay for online privacy is intensifying as the "consent or pay" model becomes more prevalent. This model offers users a choice: either allow websites to track their data and show personalised ads or pay a fee to access an ad-free experience. While this approach is gaining traction, it raises several ethical and legal questions.

Data protection laws do not outright ban the "consent or pay" model, according to the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). However, the ICO emphasises that for such a model to be compliant, consent must be freely given, fully informed, and capable of being withdrawn without penalty. This means users should have a genuinely free choice about how their data is used, and any payment for privacy should not feel like a coercive option.

The core issue revolves around balancing the right to conduct business with the right to privacy. Websites often adopt the "consent or pay" model to counteract revenue losses from reduced data collection due to stricter privacy regulations. For example, since 2018, UK websites have required explicit consent for cookies, which can lead to less data and, consequently, lower ad revenues. To make up for this shortfall, some sites offer users the choice of paying for an ad-free experience.

Ultimately, whether the "consent or pay" model is fair hinges on ensuring that users have a truly free and informed choice about their privacy. Regulatory bodies like the ICO are closely examining this model to ensure it meets high standards of consent and data protection. As the debate continues, the key will be finding a balance that respects user privacy while allowing businesses to thrive.

How Can Gerrish Legal Help?

Gerrish Legal is a dynamic digital law firm. We pride ourselves on giving high-quality and expert legal advice to our valued clients. We specialise in many aspects of digital law such as GDPR, data privacy, digital and technology law, commercial law, and intellectual property. 

We give companies the support they need to successfully and confidently run their businesses whilst complying with legal regulations without the burdens of keeping up with ever-changing digital requirements. 

We are here to help you, get in contact with us today for more information.