\n<\/p>\n
Meta\u2019s shiny new bid to circumvent European Union privacy rules<\/a> \u2014 by offering users a false choice between paying it a hefty monthly subscription for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram or agreeing to give up their privacy rights in exchange for free access to its social networks, meaning they will be tracked and profiled by the behavioral advertising giant \u2014 has been targeted with a complaint filed by privacy rights group noyb<\/a> in Austria.<\/p>\n As soon as Meta\u2019s plan to deploy a \u2018pay or okay\u2019 tactic to game a consent legal basis leaked to journalists last month<\/a> noyb committed to fighting it \u201cup and down the courts\u201d. It\u2019s making good on that pledge now by kicking off a challenge with Austria\u2019s data protection authority.<\/p>\n Meta\u2019s ad-free subscription for regional users has an initial cost of \u20ac9.99\/month on web or \u20ac12.99\/month on iOS or Android per linked Facebook and Instagram accounts in a user\u2019s Accounts Center (with an additional fee of \u20ac6\/month on web and \u20ac8\/month on iOS or Android set to apply for each additional account listed in a user\u2019s Account Center from March next year).<\/p>\n noyb contends that the cost of the subscription is \u201cway out of proportion\u201d to the value Meta derives from tracking users in the region \u2014 citing reporting by the company<\/a> that the average revenue per user in Europe between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023 was just $16.79. That figure would equate to annual revenue of \u20ac62,88 per user \u2014 whereas Meta\u2019s subscription puts a minimum annual cost for users on safeguarding their privacy of nearly \u20ac120, rising to over \u20ac250 for users who have both a Facebook and Instagram account.<\/p>\n The individual on whose behalf noyb has filed the complaint in Austria is in \u201cfinancial distress\u201d and receives unemployment assistance \u2014 indicating he cannot afford to splash out so much to protect his privacy.\u00a0Commenting in a statement, noyb\u2019s founder and chairman, Max Schrems, said: \u201cMore than 20% of the EU population are already at risk of poverty. For the complainant in our case, as for many others, a \u2018Pay or Okay\u2019 system would mean paying the rent or having privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n noyb also contends that if other app makers were to adopt the same approach the cost for users to protect their privacy would further inflate \u2014 with EU citizens facing a \u201cfundamental rights fee\u201d that could stack up to several thousands of euros per year for people with an average number of apps installed on their phone.<\/p>\n \u201cIf Meta is successful in defending this new approach, it is likely to set off a domino effect,\u201d it warns. \u201cAlready now, TikTok is reportedly testing<\/a> an ad-free subscription outside the US. Other app providers could follow in the near future, making online privacy unaffordable.<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to Google<\/a>, the average person has 35 apps installed on their smartphone. If all of these apps followed Meta\u2019s lead and charged a similar fee, people would have to pay a \u2018fundamental rights fee\u2019 of \u20ac8,815.80 a year. For a family of four, the price of data privacy would rise to \u20ac35,263.20 per year \u2014 more than the average full-time income in the EU. Obviously, these figures become even more extreme in EU Member States with lower average incomes.\u201d<\/p>\n Meta has pointed to a reference in a Court of Justice of the EU ruling from this summer<\/a>, related to its legal basis for processing user data for ads, in order to justify charging a fee for a tracking-free product. However the Court caveated the possibility of it charging a fee for a tracking-free version of its product by stipulating any such charge would need to be \u201cnecessary\u201d and \u201cappropriate\u201d.<\/p>\n noyb\u2019s complaint appears to focus on the appropriateness of Meta charging users way more money to avoid its tracking than it earns per individual it tracks. Or, in short, the adtech giant has intentionally created a privacy rip-off in order to keep ripping off people\u2019s privacy.<\/p>\n The EU\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets out the conditions for what constitutes legally obtained consent to process personal data \u2014 which includes a hard requirement for consent to be \u201cfreely given\u201d.<\/p>\n noyb\u2019s argument boils down to demonstrating that such high financial cost represents an unobtainable bar on EU citizens being able to freely choose to obtain their fundamental right to privacy.<\/p>\n It also points to research<\/a> which it says indicates the vast majority of people do not want their data to be used to target them with \u201cpersonalizeds\u201d ads \u2014 while other studies\u00a0show<\/a> people are overwhelmingly forced to consent to tracking when faced with paying a fee.<\/p>\n \u201cFundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay \u20ac250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back for more than a hundred years,\u201d said Schrems.<\/p>\n \u201cEU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a \u2018privacy fee\u2019 of up to \u20ac250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection,\u201d added Felix Mikolasch, data protection lawyer at noyb, in another supporting statement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The privacy rights group is calling for Austrian\u2019s DPA to instigate an urgency procedure to stop what it contends is Meta\u2019s illegal processing on account of what it says are the seriousness of the violations and unusually high number of users affected. It is also urging the DPA to imposes a deterrent fine to make sure others do not seek to imitate Meta\u2019s latest privacy rip-off<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meta was contacted for a response to noyb\u2019s complaint.<\/p>\n