Lots of other websites have already copied the “pay or consent” ad model
The relevant section of the DMA imposes restrictions on designated gatekeepers. It does not apply to websites that are not designated as gatekeepers.
That behavior might be questionable under the GDPR though.
I believe you’re allowed to run ads on free tiers and offer to remove them by paying. You’re not however allowed to track people without their consent, thus you can’t force personalised ads on users, and say that the only way to get rid of the privacy invasion is to pony up.
The biggest Czech website (Seznam.cz) recently changed their policy and now force you to choose between: free tier with personalised ads or paid tier with anonymous ads. Yes, you’re reading it right, even if you pay, it doesn’t get rid of ads, they just stop tracking you. I have no idea whether it’s legal but the EU should definitely take a look.
Edit: Ok, I think they only offer you this choice when you’re using an account. I tried it in a private tab and it seems I can decline personalized ads there. Does that make it legal? If yes, then they’re some sneaky bastards.
Yes, you’re reading it right, even if you pay, it doesn’t get rid of ads, they just stop tracking you.
🤢🤮
I hate what the internet has become.
I’ve been using an ad blocker for at least 15 years. I’m not about to stop now. I can’t imagine paying only to see less relevant ads…
Which will work great until corporations implement systems that force it onto us. Microsoft building it into the operating system. Mozilla acquiring advertising companies and implementing AI bullshit. Google edging closer to having a monopoly on browsers.
IANAL, but: Gdpr only says that they cannot require you to sell your data to use a service. It does not say anything about paying with money. So this seems legal to me
The case is basically that having a non-tracking paid tier makes no difference, the free tier if it exists can’t include mandatory tracking.
So they can offer a paid tier with no tracking, but they must also offer no tracking on the free tier.
That’s correct. But this is only the case because of the DMA, mit the Gdpr
The GDPR says that if you use consent as the legal basis for processing data, such consent must be free. This means that there cannot be consequences if you give or not give the consent. If there are, then the consent is not free anymore. Paying money for a service is absolutely legal, obviously, what probably is not legal is extracting your consent by offering you a discount (which is the flipside of “pay to avoid tracking”).
I just wanted to specify a bit, not that you said anything incorrect.
But I mean, it’s the same thing as this FB/IG case, no? Only worse because even if you pay, you still have ads.
No.
- the Facebook case: DMA/ digital markets act. This case is only regarding the choice between personalisation or paying to access the service. Only for really big patients deemed to be gatekeepers. There are only five at the moment: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
- showing ads that are personalized, or any other things where they use information about you: Gdpr. You have to allow it.
- showing you ads that are not personalized: completely legal. Netflix does the same I think. Also Amazon prime.
Sucks to be them, LOL!
Won’t someone please think of the shareholders 😭
facebook and instagram? I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but in Spain right now practically all newspapers/digital media have copied that model and you either accept cookies or pay
Also in Italy, but I think once the data protection agencies will get on it, it will be forbidden. It will take some time, but there is no way that’s a legitimate use of consent.
Yes, surely, but there is an underlying problem for this entire system, there is no economically viable alternative to the use of data for advertising sales, without that all those websites cease to be profitable.I don’t think this is good for anyone.
Public financing of the press, newspapers stopping being garbage and selling subscriptions like they have always done, pay per article (cents), donations. Just some ideas of economically viable alternatives. There are good niche newspapers which survive with such models, it’s not like I am making it up.
I would say the opposite: advertising alone is not sustainable for the press because it creates wrong incentives (grab attention, clicks). This is why 90% of newspapers have the same garbage, short, generic articles. This is why you get rage baits, fake news etc. too, to some extent. So yes, you get websites online, but you get no information…
Yeah, I guess you could be right.
I’m cool with Facebook dying. Hell, I would rather have YouTube die than pay for premium. We can rebuild a better www from the ashes.
It has taken almost a year to figure this out when it already was blatantly obvious when they implemented it. With that price tag, it was more blackmail
I mean, it is shitty, but nobody forces anyone to participate. Half the people on Facebook noping the fuck out completely and deleteing their accounts would make everyone’s life easier and happier
Oh yeah! I dropped out of all META platforms back in November when they implemented the Pay or OK requirement.
I can still have an opinion on it though. I am not against ads. I had just opted out of targeted ads. With the Pay or OK though they forced me to have to accept targeted ads.
Even if i paid the crazy amount they were asking (in my case the equivalent of 3 Netflix subs) they could still track me and suggest content , even from commercial accounts. So i opted out of META instead
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The European Commission writes in a preliminary ruling that the “pay or consent” advertising model that launched last year for Facebook and Instagram users runs afoul of Article 5(2) of the DMA by not giving users a third option that uses less data for ad targeting but is still free to use.
Regulators found in their investigation that Meta gives users a “binary choice” that forces them to either choose to pay a monthly subscription fee to get the ad-free version of Facebook and Instagram or consent to the ad-supported version.
Where Meta runs afoul of its rules, it says, is by not letting users opt for a free version that “uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads’ based service” and by not allowing them to “exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”
“Our preliminary view is that Meta’s advertising model fails to comply with the Digital Markets Act,” wrote Margrethe Vestager, who leads the region’s competition policy.
“Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA,” Meta spokesperson Matthew Pollard told The Verge in an email.
The commission asserted last week that Apple’s App Store “steering” policies don’t allow sufficient competition.
The original article contains 390 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
