19 European associations including UFC-Que Choisir are taking Meta to court for unfair and deceptive commercial practices. At issue: a dissuasive paid subscription, a free alternative which is not and an uninformed choice.
To comply with European Union requirements regarding the use of personal data – and more particularly the famous Digital Services Act which has just come into force – Mark Zuckerberg’s company has been offering paid subscriptions for access Facebook and Instagram without advertising. And suffice to say that the bill is steep, since you have to pay €9.99/month to not be “tracked” on the Web version of Meta’s social networks, or €12.99/month on the Android and mobile applications. iOS (see our article). Of course, it is possible to continue to use the classic versions of Facebook and Instagram for free by accepting targeted advertising and tracking. A solution which above all looks like a sleight of hand to circumvent the legislation and which makes people cringe. And not just in France.
This November 30, nineteen European associations, including UFC Que Choisir, take Meta to court for unfair and deceptive commercial practices – the choice imposed by the company would be contrary to European consumer law. Through the European Consumers’ Unions Bureau (BEUC), they contacted the European Commission, while the UFC-Que Choisir approached the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (DGCCRF). Meta had better watch out!
Meta: a free alternative that is not one
Following several court decisions by European authorities regarding the collection and processing of users’ personal data, Meta is obliged to comply with the GDPR, the European data protection regulation, which requires the collection of informed consent before any processing of personal data – it must be as easy to refuse as to accept this processing. Gold, “rather than offering an informed choice, Meta conditions the refusal to give consent to a paid subscription”notes the UFC Que Choisir in a blog post.
Another problem raised: the “free” alternative is not really free, since users are forced to provide their personal data to the company, “which has already been qualified by a previous court decision as a form of consideration” – the association refers here on this precise point to the Consumer Code, which stipulates the conditions for free service. Above all, while the paid option is presented as allowing you to avoid data collection, this is not the case. If Meta respects the absence of advertising, it continues to “collect user data for purposes other than advertising”. Furthermore, given that one cannot access social networks unless one chooses between the two options, Mark Zuckerberg’s firm creates a feeling of urgency which prevents the user from making an informed choice. Not to mention that the subscription prices are judged “dissuasive”which leads the association to qualify these commercial practices as “misleading and aggressive”.
BEUC and UFC-Que Choisir also accuse the tech giant of taking advantage of its dominant position on the market to force users to submit to one of the two choices. It leaves no real alternative to those who wish to leave Meta’s services without giving up the use of social networks. Because, “Given the market power of Meta’s Facebook and Instagram services in the EU and the very strong network effects of social media platforms (since all your friends are on Facebook and Instagram), consumers don’t really have much choice, because if they leave the services, they will lose all the contacts and interactions they have established over the years”explains BEUC.
Meta: deceptive and aggressive commercial practices
Faced with all these problematic points, the European Consumer Bureau therefore asked the European Commission to open an investigation, while UFC-Que Choisir contacted the DGCCRF. “Meta violates European consumer law by using unfair, deceptive and aggressive practices, including partially preventing consumers from using the services to force them to make a decision quickly”explains Ursula Pachl, the general director of BEUC. “Consumer protection authorities in the EU must now take action and force the tech giant to end this practice.
The company’s approach also raises concerns regarding GDPR.”
On November 28, two days earlier, the NGO NOYB of Austrian lawyer Max Schrems had also filed a complaint for violation of the GDPR, this time before the Austrian CNIL, describing the subscription as illegal.