Meta ad-free service faces data protection showdown

Meta’s ad-free subscription service for Facebook and Instagram is not only illegal – and pitiful – it takes data protection back more than a 100 years, when privacy was only available for the rich.

That is the crux of the first data protection complaint filed against the new service by privacy group NOYB, representing a single Austrian resident.

The organisation is run by long-time Meta critic and Austrian lawyer Max Schrems, who warns the move is likely to set off a domino effect, with other platforms following suit, rocketing costs for EU residents.

Although the scheme is not available in the UK, due to Brexit, users in the EU, European Economic Area and Switzerland are now able to pay up to €12.99 per month for an ad-free version of both social media platforms.

Each linked account (such as Instagram) will cost another €8, making a total of €251.88 a year for one person using Instagram and Facebook. By comparison Meta says its average revenue per user in Europe between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023 was $16.79, equating to an annual revenue of €62.88 per user.

However, Meta claims the subscription is about addressing EU concerns, rather than making money following a €390m fine for a breach of GDPR over “forced consent”; basically consumers have to accept how their data is used or leave the platforms.

NOYB maintains European users now have the “choice” to either consent to being tracked for personalised advertising – or pay up to €251.88 a year to retain their fundamental right to data protection on Instagram and Facebook.

The organisation states: “Not only is the cost unacceptable, but industry numbers suggest that only 3% of people want to be tracked – while more than 99% decide against a payment when faced with a ‘privacy fee’. If Meta gets away with this, competitors will soon follow in its footsteps. Given that the average phone has 35 apps installed, keeping your phone private could soon cost around €8,815 a year.”

Under GDPR, consent to online tracking and personalised advertising is only valid if it is “freely given”. This, NOYB insists, is to ensure that users only give up their fundamental right to privacy if it is their genuine free will to do so.

Schrems said: “It’s neither smart nor legal – it’s just pitiful how Meta continues to ignore EU law.”

NOYB claims that if Meta is successful in defending this new approach, it is likely to set off a domino effect. TikTok is already reportedly testing an ad-free subscription outside the US and other app providers could follow in the near future, making online privacy unaffordable.

The privacy organisation cites Google figures which show the average person has 35 apps installed on their smartphone. It argues that if all of these apps followed Meta’s lead and charged a similar fee, people would have to pay a “fundamental rights fee” of €8,815.80 a year. For a family of four, the price of data privacy would rise to €35,263.20 per year – more than the average full-time income in the EU.

Schrems continued: “Fundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay €250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back more than 100 years.”

While this price is extremely high in general, it also completely ignores the very different income levels in EU countries – and the fact that 21.6% of the EU population is at risk of poverty or social exclusion, NOYB maintains. The complainant in this case, for example, is in financial distress and receives unemployment assistance. He simply cannot afford to pay another €250 a year, when he is already struggling to pay his rent.

Schrems concluded: “More than 20% of the EU population are already at risk of poverty. For the complainant in our case, as for many others, a ‘Pay or Okay’ system would mean paying the rent or having privacy.”

NOYB says that given the seriousness of the violations and the unusually high number of users affected, the Austrian data protection authority must initiate an urgency procedure to stop the illegal processing. In addition, NOYB suggests that the authority imposes a deterrent fine, making sure that no other company starts copying Meta’s approach.