How can the value of privacy be quantified? Is opting for a yearly VPN subscription a reasonable investment, or is it more practical to allocate time to configure privacy settings individually on each website? What is considered a reasonable price to safeguard personal information and online activities from being used for targeted advertising?
Various companies offer different answers to these questions. For instance, Yahoo provides ad-free email for $5 per month, while Spotify charges double for an ad-free music experience. To escape ads on YouTube, it comes at a steeper price of $13.99 per month.
In a significant departure, Meta will now introduce a monthly charge for privacy. Presently, in Europe, this fee stands at €9.99 ($10.50) or €12.99 if subscribers sign up via their mobile devices.
This marks a notable shift for Meta, a company that has long praised the advantages of an ad-supported internet, asserting that it ensures equal access to its services, regardless of users' financial resources. However, European privacy regulators are increasingly scrutinizing Meta. The company faces a series of fines and legal challenges, with regulators arguing that it must change the way it obtains user consent for behavioral advertising. Meta's response to this pressure is to offer users the option to pay for an ad-free experience if they dislike the targeted ads.
Meta plans to roll out the new ad-free subscription option in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland in November, although the exact date is unspecified. Company spokesperson Al Tolan states, "We are confident that our product solution is compliant with evolving legal requirements in the EU." The subscription option will be available exclusively to adults, with Meta's platforms pausing ads for individuals under the age of 18.
However, this plan has stirred discontent and threats of further legal action in Europe. Regulators and privacy advocates contend that Meta's approach is merely an attempt to evade the substantial changes needed to align its products with European privacy laws. Tobias Judin, spokesperson for Norway's privacy watchdog, Datatilsynet, asserts, "Meta is desperately trying to find solutions to continue the current status quo."
European Courts and Regulators Challenge Meta on Data Privacy
For years, European courts have maintained that Meta must secure free and explicit consent—either yes or no—from individuals using its services before using their personal data for advertising. In a further step, Norway, while not an EU member but part of the European Economic Area, deemed Meta's behavioral advertising methods illegal in July, resulting in a ban and daily fines of $100,000 for non-compliance. The accumulated fine now exceeds $7 million.
Recently, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), comprised of regulators, approved the extension of Norway's ban throughout the EU, set to take effect in the coming two weeks. The EU has the authority to impose even higher fines on Meta if the company continues to resist. In May, Meta was ordered to pay $1 billion for illicitly transferring European data to the US.
Meta's spokesperson, Tolan, highlights the ongoing discussions with EDPB members regarding a subscription-based privacy model and states that this development overlooks a careful and rigorous regulatory process.
However, Judin holds a different perspective, arguing that the pay-for-privacy model is not a legally sound alternative to Meta's current system. He contends that it resembles extortion, giving users the ultimatum to either pay or relinquish their rights. Furthermore, users often lack the option to switch to alternative social platforms due to their connections with friends and family on Meta's platforms, making their consent less than voluntary.
In response, Tolan references a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision from July, which indicated that Meta must provide users with an ad-free alternative, even if it entails a reasonable fee. According to Tolan, Meta's approach aligns with this ruling.
Paying for Privacy vs. Data Rights
Privacy activists are expressing their discontent with Meta's new approach. Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist and the founder of the digital rights group NOYB, asserts that privacy, akin to fundamental rights, should not be up for sale. According to Schrems, selling privacy is as illegitimate as attempting to sell one's kidney or the right to vote. NOYB is contemplating legal action against Meta's novel model.
Schrems highlights that if Europe embraces Meta's model, it could signify that privacy becomes a commodity affordable only to the top 10 percent, leaving others with no choice but to surrender their data.
The concept of "pay-for-privacy" has been debated in the US for several years. Back in 2015, AT&T stirred controversy by offering customers a $29 per month discount in exchange for using their web browsing data to personalize ads, though the company's current stance on this is unclear.
Notably, not everyone opposes the new model. Thomas Lenard, a senior fellow and president emeritus at the Technology Policy Institute, believes that pay-for-privacy plans can benefit lower-income consumers by offering them a choice between paying with money or with their data, essentially providing a discount in exchange for data.
Europe is searching for a solution to what it sees as Meta's personal advertising issue. While regulators in the bloc are yet to determine whether this pay-for-privacy model aligns with the solution, some view Meta's announcement as a step forward. Johnny Ryan, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, acknowledges the significance of placing a value on people's data, even though he had hoped for a different alternative from Meta.