Noyb files GDPR complaint against Meta over "Pay or Okay"

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Meta’s new “pay or okay” model in the EU—charging around €10/month to avoid personalized ads—has raised concerns that it effectively turns privacy, a fundamental right under GDPR, into a luxury good. Commenters argue over whether users can simply “choose not to use” Facebook and WhatsApp, given their quasi-utility role in European social and institutional life, and whether consent is truly “freely given” if the alternative is an expensive subscription. Many expect the case brought by privacy group noyb to set an important precedent for the legality of pay-for-privacy schemes across tech and media platforms.

Legality of “Pay or Okay” under GDPR

  • Many argue the model violates GDPR because consent must be “freely given”; forcing users to choose between tracking or payment is seen as coercive.
  • Citations from GDPR (recital and Article 7) are discussed: consent can’t be tied to processing not necessary for the service, and “no detriment” must exist for refusal.
  • Others contend users remain free to reject both options by not using the service, so consent is still voluntary.
  • Some see this as the decisive “test case” for whether pay-or-consent schemes are legal.

Privacy as a Right vs. Access to Facebook

  • Broad agreement that social media access is not a fundamental right, but privacy is.
  • Argument: companies must comply with law; if they can’t run their service without violating rights, they should leave the market.
  • Counterpoint: regulators shouldn’t treat social networking as an entitlement or regulate business models too aggressively.

Pricing and Business Model Debates

  • Many view Meta’s ~€10/month fee as deliberately inflated to push users toward tracking.
  • Discussion of estimated ad revenue per EU user; some say the fee far exceeds average revenue, others note newer figures suggest it may be closer.
  • Concern that letting firms “sell back” privacy sets a precedent where rights become de facto paywalled.
  • Opposing view: platforms cost a lot to run; either ads or fees are necessary, and paying for non-tracking is reasonable in principle.

Social Dependence on Meta Services

  • Several note that WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook are deeply embedded in daily life (schools, clubs, events).
  • This social lock-in makes “just don’t use it” unrealistic for many, especially students and parents.

Tracking, Ads, and Anonymization

  • Distinction drawn between ads and tracking: users object mainly to profiling, not to ads per se.
  • Claims that so-called “anonymization” is often just pseudonymization and easily reversible.
  • Commenters suspect Meta continues collecting data even for paying users, since the subscription only removes personalized ads, not tracking.

Comparison with Other Platforms and Publishers

  • Some wish similar constraints applied to Google/YouTube; others note you can already reduce YouTube tracking via settings/workarounds.
  • European news sites’ “cookie walls” and “pur-abo” (pay-or-consent) models are raised; some regulators have explicitly accepted them, leading to criticism of inconsistency.

Enforcement, Damages, and Noyb’s Role

  • Noyb is widely praised as methodical and effective; seen as likely to win given GDPR’s text on consent and dark patterns.
  • Discussion of whether users can claim civil damages in addition to regulatory fines; suggestion that administrative rulings can support mass small-claims or collective redress.
  • Some users respond by quitting Facebook entirely, even if they doubt it affects Meta’s behavior.