The European Data Protection Committee (CEPD) has ruled on the procedure ‘Pay or accept’ (‘Pay or OK’, in English) and has indicated that online platforms should offer a third way, which would represent a “real option” when using these models of user data consent.
Meta, owner of services such as Instagram and Facebook, introduced an advertising-free subscription format in November last year that from then on began to coexist with another form of free use. Unlike the subscription options, in the latter User tracking is maintained for advertising purposes.
With this measure, what is known as ‘Pay or accept’, which indicates that users are forced to pay for the right to data privacy, something that different non-profit organizations dedicated to the protection of digital rights have denounced on different occasions.
The latest of these occurred this week, when a series of associations published a new open letter in which they urged the EDPB to assess the problems of this format, designed to circumvent EU privacy protections and to obtain commercial profits, according to the signatories.
They did so shortly before this body met to discuss this procedure user tracking; a meeting that took place this Wednesday and in which it was concluded that the platforms should offer an alternative way to the ‘Accept or pay’ mechanic.
The president of the CEPD, Anu Talus, has acknowledged that current models “normally require people to hand over all their data or pay.” As a result, most “consent to processing to use a service and They don’t understand the full implications of their choices“.
The Committee considers that offering only a payment alternative to services that involve the processing of personal data for targeted advertising purposes “should not be the default path” for those responsible for these platforms, who must work on other options.
Thus, he believes that large online platforms should “consider the possibility of offering individuals an equivalent alternative that does not involve the payment of a fee”, as specified in a statement published on its website.
If they choose to charge a fee for access to this other alternative, they should “seriously” consider the possibility of offering another additional option; a free alternative that should not include behavioral advertising and “involving the processing of less or no personal data.”
“This is a particularly important factor in the evaluation of valid consent under the General Data Protection Regulation,” the agency explained, underlining that “obtaining consent does not exempt the data controller from complying with all the principles set out in Article 5 of the GDPR, such as purpose limitation, data minimization and fairness.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CURRENT FORMAT
Regarding the need for data consent to be free, the CEPD has indicated that A series of criteria must be taken into accountsuch as conditionality, harm and power imbalance.
This means that “any fee charged cannot make people feel obliged to give consent“and that platforms must assess whether it is an appropriate amount in the given circumstances.
It also considers that these companies have a responsibility to consider whether the decision not to give consent may lead these individuals to suffer “negative consequences”, such as the risk of losing connections or lack of access to professional networks.
Likewise, it considers that the developers of these services must also evaluate “case by case” whether there is an imbalance of power between the person and them, so that factors such as the position of the large online platforms in the market or the extent to which the particular user depends on the service they offer.
Finally, Talus has pointed out that these companies “must be careful at all times to avoid transforming the fundamental right to data protection into a feature that people have to pay to enjoy.” Finally, he stressed that these users “must be fully aware of the value and consequences of their choices.