Meta finds itself in the crosshairs of new allegations regarding data privacy violations due to its subscription offer for Facebook and Instagram to avoid ads, introduced last November. The accusers comprise eight consumer groups spanning the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, France, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain, coordinated by the European consumer organization BEUC.
Representing Spain in the group is the Federation of Consumers and Users (CECU), which filed the complaint with national data protection authorities (AEPD). CECU’s director, David Sánchez, stated, “For a long time, there has been a power disparity between big tech companies and individuals using their services. This new ‘pay or consent to the use of our information for advertising’ policy exemplifies this imbalance and is another way of trying to maintain the model of massive commercial surveillance to which we are subjected every day.”
€9.99 for Your Privacy Meta’s ad-free version is a subscription offering introduced in response to European Union (EU) privacy regulations, specifically the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Digital Services Act (DSA).
In November 2022, Mark Zuckerberg’s company launched a payment plan for EU users, allowing them to enjoy Facebook and Instagram without ads. Users opting for this subscription pay a monthly fee of €9.99/month on the web and €12.99/month on iOS and Android. This subscription applies to all linked Facebook and Instagram accounts in a user’s Account Center.
However, BEUC claims that the information provided by Meta regarding how consumers’ data will be treated in either case—paying or not—is insufficient and unclear. The multinational seeks to “coerce consumers into accepting the processing of their personal data.”
Lawsuits and Criticisms Since Meta rolled out the paid version, complaints and controversies have arisen from various consumer organizations across Europe. This time, BEUC’s formal submission accuses the company of keeping consumers in the dark about data processing, making it impossible for them to understand how processing changes when choosing one option over another. The organization argues that the company fails to demonstrate the necessity of the fee imposed on consumers who do not consent, which is a requirement according to the European Court of Justice.
In that regard, BEUC’s Deputy Director General, Ursula Pachl, pointed out that Meta’s “pay or consent” offer is an attempt to legalize its business model, which involves the mass collection of personal information for monetization through invasive advertising. “It is essential that any consent provided by consumers is valid and meets the high standards set by the law, which requires such consent to be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. This is not the case with Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model,” states the press release.
The European Commission is also overseeing Meta’s compliance with the regulations of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Violations of these regulations could lead to significant penalties, including the possibility of ordering companies to reform their business models.
The lawsuits argue that Meta lacks a valid legal basis for data processing under the GDPR, and penalties for non-compliance could amount to up to 4% of the company’s global annual turnover.
