Meta must stop charging for people’s right to privacy
Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal
Ahead of a crucial opinion by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) - a grouping of the EU’s chief privacy regulators - on Meta’s plan to charge for privacy, the European Commission has opened an investigation that hopefully will cast light on the unlawfulness of Meta’s so-called "Pay or Okay" model, which has become the talk of the town in Brussels.
Meta's transition from its longstanding and proudly-promoted "free and always will be" ethos, to introducing paid subscription options in November 2023, sparked shock waves.
This shift was prompted by the EU’s top court ruling, which deemed the company’s monetisation of user data unlawful and compelled the corporation to look for alternatives.
Meta’s "Pay or Okay" approach is its last-ditch e ort to rationalise extensive commercial surveillance. Forcing people to pay for their privacy, however, is not providing them with a real consent choice.
The alternative to paying presented to users seems simple: just click "ok" - and agree to be subjected to tracking and pro ling. This is far from ideal when it comes to data protection, which is a fundamental right.
The EDPB’s upcoming decision on 16 and 17 April could disrupt the dangerous normalisation of such business models and invasive practices.
An opinion rejecting "Pay or Okay" regarding large platforms would set a strong precedent for safeguarding privacy rights not only within the EU but also globally.
‘Pay or Okay’ is neither legitimate nor lawful
Pressure against Meta and its model is mounting from all directions, driven by numerous reasons.
The digital rights community is concerned about Big Tech companies undermining privacy as a paramount fundamental right and their repeated attempts to commodify it.
Recently, two open letters supported by a number of civil society organisations have voiced these concerns and urged the EDPB to take a decisive stance against the "Pay or Consent" model.
These past few years, we've witnessed a concerning trend where data privacy, as it has happened with elds like work and health, increasingly becomes a luxury accessible only to the a uent.
'Pay or Okay' coerces people into accepting the use, sharing, or sale of their personal data, compromising the principle of free, informed, and unequivocal consent.
We're often told that privacy is sacri ced for the ease of modern living, disregarding the fact that fundamental rights should be universal and not subject to mere convenience.
Furthermore, the "Pay or Okay" model attempts to carve out a signi cant exemption in the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU law that gives people more control over their personal data and requires organisations to