Pay to protect your privacy, or agree to be tracked for ads—the choice millions of Europeans face on Meta’s platforms. Regulators have already stepped in and fined the company. But according to the EU’s largest consumer group, the system still fails to offer a real, fair alternative.
Few changes and no meaningful results for consumers. That’s the scathing conclusion of an analysis by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) of Meta’s latest consent model, introduced in January.
“Meta continues to roll out only minor adjustments rather than solve the problem once and for all. The result is that consumers have to once again make a choice that lacks clarity and doesn’t respect basic principles of data protection law. People deserve a real, fair choice, not another round of confusing prompts,” said BEUC director general, Agustín Reyna.
In an email to EU Perspectives, Meta “comprehensively rejected” BEUC’s findings. “As we’ve said before, our solution meets regulator demands and—we are very confident—goes beyond what the law requires. More importantly, the European Commission has already drawn a line under this matter and accepted our solution,” explained Matt Pollard, EMEA Policy Comms for Meta.
You might be interested
The “matter” in question is the European Commission’s finding in April 2025. The Commission concluded that Meta’s implementation of the consent or pay model was non-compliant with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The ruling resulted in a €200 million fine.
No meaningful choice
The Commission found that Meta did not provide an “equivalent alternative” to its subscription service. This effectively pushed users into consenting to personal data processing. Additionally it deemed the subscription fees too expensive for users to have a meaningful choice.
From a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) perspective, the interpretation of “freely given consent” has been hotly debated due to the unequal power dynamics between Big Tech gatekeepers like Meta and individual users with little bargaining leverage.
By law, users are entitled to a less personalised option. Yet the current user flow makes it possible for users to select the ‘no ads option’ in the first step without being presented with the ‘less personalised ads’ option. — The European Consumer Organisation
Following the EU’s enforcement, Meta tweaked how it asks users to consent to ad tracking. The company added a third option allowing users to choose “less” personal data for ads on Facebook and Instagram. In exchange, these users get “ad breaks”.
However BEUC said “Meta still fails to provide the ‘less personalised ads’ option upfront and on the same level as the ‘no ads option’. By law, users are entitled to a less personalised option. Yet the current user flow makes it possible to select the ‘no ads option’ in the first step without being presented with the ‘less personalised ads’ option”.
According to the consumer organisation, users who opt for the ‘less personalised ads option’ also get a ‘degraded experience’ due to imposed ad breaks which interrupt the user experience.
Unsustainable for business
Pollard refuted this criticism. “Meta’s decision to include ad breaks for users in a less personalised advertising environment, where ads are less relevant to a person’s interest, allows advertisers to connect with a wider audience,“ he stated.
“This means that some of the less personalised ads will be unskippable for a few seconds. The change will help us continue to provide value to advertisers. That ensures we can offer people a less-personalised ads experience at no charge. Such ad breaks are common across other services, and are already offered by many of our competitors,” Pollard explained. Meta has launched legal appeals against the DMA ruling arguing it imposes an unsustainable business model.
BEUC meanwhile has called on the European Commission and competent authorities to ensure that Meta swiftly complies with EU law. “In addition, the Commission should, where appropriate, impose periodic penalty payments to bring an end to these practices,” said Reyna.
Are monetization options running out?
A Commission spokesperson told EU Perspectives: “The Commission is currently monitoring the latest choice that users of Facebook and Instagram in the EU are offered regarding Meta’s use of their personal data for targeted advertising on its platforms. In this context, we are always open to input from stakeholders such as the submission from BEUC, which is useful feedback for the Commission’s monitoring of Meta’s compliance with the DMA.”
Alexander Schmalenberger, Knowledge Lawyer with Taylor Wessing said that while BEUC’s analysis sheds light on the ongoing regulatory debate its reasoning takes a “legally extreme and maximalist interpretation.”
“The association effectively equates the ‘equivalent alternative’ required under the Digital Markets Act with an obligation to provide a premium service free of charge, completely free of advertising and manipulative design. If choice architecture that simply informs the user of the economic consequences of their selection is immediately dismissed as ‘dark patterns’ and manipulative deception, any legally compliant design of a consent menu becomes de facto impossible,” he said.
And that would have consequences for the entire market. “Should this uncompromising view prevail, there would effectively be no legally secure pathway left for large technology companies to offer legitimate and data-minimising monetisation models beyond pure paid subscriptions,” Schmalenberger explains.
