People

Careers

Corporate

Commercial

Employment

News & Insights

Blog

News

Videos

Who we are

Environment & Sustainability

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

WONDER Foundation

Home

Resources

Registered in England &amp; Wales at 73 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ
<a href="tel:+442081596000">Tel: +44 (0)20 8159 6000</a>
Company Nr: 15894546
ICO Registration Nr:  ZB842887
VAT Registration Nr: 484 5226 73
Linnear Legal is an unregulated legal services provider, meaning the firm itself is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, the solicitors employed by the firm are individually regulated by the SRA. Please see our Terms and Conditions for further information on our regulatory status, complaints procedure and insurance arrangements.

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Policy

Privacy Policy

Services

Insights

About

We are driven by doing things differently, from every angle. 

Taking our Carbon Neutral Certified  status seriously.  

Putting equity and inclusion at the heart of everything we do.

Supporting sustainable employment and gender equality with WONDER. 

WONDER foundation

Contact us

First adopted by news websites suffering from a loss of advertising revenue to big tech and social media platforms, ‘pay or OK’ – also known as ‘consent or pay’ – is a privacy model that asks users to choose between either paying a subscription fee for an ad-free experience or accepting personalised ads by consenting to data tracking.
In an ironic twist of events, the very social media platforms that pushed news outlets into adopting this system are now trying to implement this model.
However, social media sites like Facebook and Instagram are very different to news sites, and this move has led to intense regulatory scrutiny – particularly in the European Union. On 22 April, the European Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fined Meta €200 million</a> (£171 million) under the <a href="https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Digital Markets Act</a> (DMA), concluding that the model fails to provide users with meaningful consent options.
<h3 aria-level="2">The history of ‘pay or OK’ and Meta</h3>
In 2021, UK human rights campaigner and tech expert Tanya O’Carroll wrote to Meta objecting to having her data harvested for profiling on Facebook and Instagram without being given the option to opt out. This resulted in a claim being brought before the High Court in England, which was settled prior to the trial, with Meta agreeing to stop using O’Carroll’s personal data for targeted advertising.
Then, in July 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in a separate case that Meta’s handling of personal data for targeted advertising was illegal. In an attempt to resolve the issue, Meta decided to float the idea of a ‘pay or OK’ subscription model and began rolling out that model in the EU. This meant EU users were forced into either consenting to personalised ads or paying €251.88 a year to opt out.
This prompted Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems, co-founder of the non-profit <a href="https://noyb.eu/en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NOYB</a> (an acronym for None of Your Business), to launch a campaign against the model. In July 2024, the European Commission issued a decision that concluded Meta&#8217;s binary choice didn’t offer a real option for users who wanted a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the original service provided by the platform.
<h3 aria-level="2">The first Digital Markets Act fines</h3>
The DMA requires gatekeepers like Meta to respect users’ rights under the <a href="https://gdpr-info.eu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">General Data Protection Regulation</a> (GDPR), including the right to freely give consent. Unlike the GDPR, which has multiple authorities across EU Member States, the DMA only has a single authority – the European Commission. This generally means speedier enforcement and fewer conflicting decisions across jurisdictions, which is why the DMA was able to issue a preliminary ruling against Meta only several months after launching its first investigations in March 2024.
Just hours after the first fines of the DMA were finalised – a combined €700 million – leading EU data protection regulators took the stage at the <a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/at-gps-european-regulators-reflect-on-pay-or-consent-enforcement-decisions-concerns/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2025</a> for a discussion on the implications of ‘pay or OK’ models.
Commissioner Bertrand du Marais told attendees that the Commission’s decision indicates that the dominant position large companies occupy in the digital market ‘reduces the options from the data subject point of view’ concerning their ability to make free and informed decisions on consent.
EDPB Chair Anu Talus said platforms must offer ‘a real choice’ when using ‘consent or pay’ models. Most do not. Instead, users are cornered into trading personal data for access, rarely understanding what that trade entails.

Stephen Almond

It’s going to be no good if you’re saying, ‘Hey, you can pay $1,000 for this super-duper privacy extra thing that has all these extra bells and whistles tagged on, or you can consent to this low value kind of experience.’ You’ve got to make sure that the choices that you’re getting people are equivalent.

<h3 aria-level="2">Meta’s position in the UK</h3>
Meta has not yet launched the ad-free subscription in the UK, but it is in active discussions with the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Information Commissioner’s Office</a> (ICO), which has released guidance that echoes many of the EU’s concerns.
At the same privacy summit, Stephen Almond, the ICO’s Executive Director of Regulatory Risk, underlined the importance of proportionality and transparency. ‘It’s going to be no good,’ he said, ‘if you&#8217;re saying, “Hey, you can pay $1,000 for this super-duper privacy extra thing . . . or you can consent to this low value kind of experience.”’ The choices users are given, Almond argued, must be equivalent, not punitive.
The ICO’s stance centres on the structural imbalance between users and platforms – what it calls the ‘power balance’. When users are asked to give consent to access essential or widely used services, that consent is rarely free in any meaningful sense.
<h3 aria-level="2">Meta’s response</h3>
In a statement, Meta said that modifications it would need to make to its model could ‘result in a materially worse user experience for European users and a significant impact’ on its European business. Notably, using dog-whistle language alluding to Trump’s trade war, the Meta Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan referred to the fine as a ‘multi-billion-dollar tariff’.
Analysts like Eric Seufert of Mobile Dev Memo suggest this is a deliberate play to rally public opinion. By portraying the regulatory regime as the reason users may lose access to favoured services – or face degraded versions – Meta is attempting to turn consumers into a lobbying force.

‘Pay or OK’: Meta fined €200 million in first DMA fines

In the first fines under the Digital Markets Act, EU regulators have responded to Meta's controversial 'pay or OK' model.

‘Pay or OK’: Meta fined €200 million in first DMA fines | Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/shutterstock_2553340393.jpg

Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Linnear-Legal-logo.png

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/557c7f891380b6950d58942a774782ca?s=96&d=mm&r=g

‘Pay or OK’: Meta fined €200 million in first DMA fines

‘Pay or OK’: Meta fined €200 million in first DMA fines