{"id":27362,"date":"2024-06-24T01:41:29","date_gmt":"2024-06-24T08:41:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/?p=27362"},"modified":"2024-06-24T01:41:31","modified_gmt":"2024-06-24T08:41:31","slug":"privacy-body-consent-or-pay-approaches-must-offer-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.privateinternetaccess.com\/blog\/privacy-body-consent-or-pay-approaches-must-offer-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"Top EU Privacy Body Says \u201cConsent or Pay\u201d Approaches Must Offer a Real Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

August 2023 saw one of the most significant developments in the world of online privacy. Meta announced that it would seek consent from users<\/a> for behavioral ads in Europe. As we reported in December, Meta actually meant that anyone who wanted to protect their privacy from adtech would need to pay a subscription fee<\/a> \u2013 \u20ac120 (about $130) per year on the web, or \u20ac156 (about $170) per year on iOS and Android \u2013 to remove ads.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This represented a radical shift both in how social media is funded and how surveillance-based advertising is operated. In January 2024, the data protection authorities of Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany asked the EU\u2019s top privacy body, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), to issue an opinion on whether the so-called \u201cconsent or pay\u201d system adopted by Meta was permitted under the EU\u2019s GDPR privacy law.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EDPB has now published its views on the approach<\/a>. It does not believe that \u201cconsent or pay\u201d models can comply with the GDPR\u2019s requirement for user consent. According to the EDPB, if users only have a choice between paying a fee or consenting to give up their privacy, they might \u201cfeel compelled to consent\u201d to save money and retain access to important social networks.\u00a0 The EDPB says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

When developing alternatives, large online platforms should consider providing individuals with an \u2018equivalent alternative\u2019 that does not entail the payment of a fee. If controllers do opt to charge a fee for access to the \u2018equivalent alternative\u2019, they should give significant consideration to offering an additional alternative. This free alternative should be without behavioral advertising, e.g. with a form of advertising involving the processing of less or no personal data.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That last point is important, as the privacy organization noyb points out in its commentary on the EDPB opinion<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EDPB also mentioned the possibility of introducing a third option beyond \u201cPay or Okay\u201d, which has so far been largely ignored by the industry. In fact, there are many ways to monetise a website, such as contextual advertising, product placement, paid content or freemium models where certain content is only available for a fee. While the industry tries to limit the discussion to two options (\u201cpay\u201d or \u201cokay\u201d), the EDPB has emphasised that the GDPR does not limit other ways of funding products \u2013 even if they may be less profitable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EDPB opinion is not the end of the story.\u00a0 As Max Schrems, chairman of noyb, writes:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are concerned that today\u2019s first opinion is rather cautious and was based on limited facts. Once all the facts are on the table, we are confident that \u2018Pay or Okay\u2019 will be declared unlawful across the board. We know that \u2018Pay or Okay\u2019 shifts consent rates from about 3% to more than 99% \u2013 so it is as far from \u2018freely given\u2019 consent as North Korea is from a democracy. It is crucial to get all the relevant numbers for further decisions beyond Meta and larger platforms.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n