Meta is in turmoil! European authorities have ruled that its paid subscription for Facebook and Instagram violates the GDPR. The company is ordered to set up a free alternative, and without data collection.
It smells like a scorch for Meta! While the European Commission has launched several investigations into GAFAM to see if they complied with the DMA, Mark Zuckerberg’s company is getting a slap on the wrist. The problem ? Its famous, much-maligned paid subscription. Indeed, in order to comply with European legislation, Meta offers users a paid plan to free themselves from advertising and data collection (see our article). They can choose to pay €9.99/month to not be “tracked” on the web version of the company’s social networks, or €12.99/month on the Android and iOS mobile applications. This unique subscription links Facebook, Instagram or any other identifier registered in the “Accounts” area of Meta. Suffice to say that at this price, the majority of users must undoubtedly prefer to stay on the free version of these platforms… The UFC-Que Choisir and other associations have also filed a complaint with the CNIL regarding this subject. According to the French organization, users “are not able to assess the extent or consequences of the data processing carried out by Meta, which makes any valid consent totally impossible, illusory and ineffective”.
Also, after the firm was seized by several European CNILs and taken to court by various consumer defense associations, the European Committee for Data Protection (EDPS) ruled, in a notice published on April 17 : this mechanism nicknamed “Pay or accept” was deemed incompatible with EU rules, including the famous General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Meta’s non-compliance with the GDPR: a third mandatory solution
However, in order to put all the chances on its side, Meta proposed, in March, to lower the price of the subscription from €9.99 to €5.99. An initiative which has clearly not convinced the regulators. Because, beyond the price of the subscription, it is above all the principle which disturbs data protectors. In his opinion, the EDPS explains that the “fundamental right to data protection” cannot be reduced to “a binary choice” forcing users who want to maintain their privacy to pay. Also, Meta – but this is valid for all major platforms – will have to put in place an alternative solution which will not be based on the exploitation of personal data, but will not require the payment of a subscription either.
Suffice to say that it is a real shock for the company, which had promised that its paid subscription was indeed “compliant with the evolution of European regulations”. She will therefore have to find a third way to monetize her social networks. This risks upsetting its economic model, which has always relied on the exploitation of the personal data of its users to fill its coffers. The EDPS suggests a “free alternative […] devoid of targeted advertising, for example with forms of advertising based on a much smaller volume of personal data, or even not involving the processing of personal data”.
For the regulator, “this is a particularly important factor” to assess the validity of user consent. He concludes by adding that platform operators “must assess on a case-by-case basis whether (subscription) fees are an appropriate solution, and if so how much” and “ask what negative consequences – exclusion from an important service, deprivation of access to professional networks, loss of content…- would result in a user refusing to pay these fees”. A warning for all the big gatekeepers exploiting the privacy of Internet users to enrich themselves, such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft.