Should you have to pay for online privacy?

This message is increasingly heard on websites: surf for free – if you allow us to track your data and show you personalized ads. If not, pay some money.

The model is known as “consent or pay” and is becoming increasingly common, but the question remains whether it is ethical or even legal.

The British data protection authority Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has Advice on this practice; the results will be presented later this year.

“In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models based on ‘consent or payment’,” the ICO’s website states.

But it goes on to say: “Any organisation considering such a model must, however, ensure that consent … has been given voluntarily and in full knowledge of the facts and can be withdrawn without detriment.”

There are several competing claims.

Regulators like the ICO want to ensure that citizens retain as much control as possible over what happens to their personal data.

Websites, on the other hand, are wary of changes in online advertising and fear losing revenue to more emerging groups in the online world, such as influencers.

“It basically comes down to a battle between the right to conduct business and the right to privacy,” says Philippa Donn, partner at DPN Associates, a management consultancy that advises on data protection issues.

There is a common way of understanding business models on the Internet: “If you get it for free, you are the product.”

In practice, this means that websites give away their content for free and in return you give them your personal information.

They then sell this information so that they can target you with advertising that is more personally tailored to you – and more lucrative for them.

Since 2018, however, this model has been under threat: in the UK, websites must now ask for explicit consent to use cookies and similar tracking technologies.

Everyone is familiar with the pop-up that appears when visiting a website, asking you to “accept all cookies” or reject non-essential cookies.

The problem for websites is that if they opt out of tracking, they collect less information, which means advertisers pay them less because they have less confidence in the targeting of their ads.

This is where the “accept or pay” principle comes in. It is the websites’ attempt to recoup the money they lose when you opt out of having your data collected and sold.

This particularly affects the print media, which are largely financed through advertising and paywalls on the Internet.

But online advertisers have spent their money elsewhere – on social media sites, influencers and brand deals – leaving a black hole in newspaper budgets.

Newspapers such as MailOnline, The Sun, The Independent and The Times have all recently introduced “consent or pay” models.

“Basically, what we’re saying is, ‘We’re giving people a choice. They can either pay and get ad-free access to our articles, or they can be tracked, or they can go away and not read the articles,'” says Philippa Donn.

The question being considered by the ICO and others is: is this a fair choice?

The idea of ​​voluntary consent must meet “very high standards,” says Eva Lu, partner at the law firm Stephenson Harwood.

For Lu, it depends on whether the user “really has free choice as to how his or her personal data should be used by the organization.”

This means that the question of whether the model is permissible or not can be decided on a case-by-case basis.

This can take into account the amount that users have to pay for data protection.

Another factor to consider is the size of the company and whether there is an alternative option for users.

“If you can’t read a particular article, you might just decide against it and read it somewhere else,” Ms. Lu says.

However, for other industries such as film and TV streaming, this is “much harder to justify,” she adds.

“From a user’s perspective, if I want to watch a movie or TV show and it’s only available on that streaming service or platform, then that alternative may not be available elsewhere.”

The question has been tested on social media in the EU, where Meta has introduced a “pay or consent” policy on Instagram and Facebook.

In this model, Facebook and Instagram continue to track your behavior in their apps to provide information to the recommendation algorithm.

However, this data will not be used to show you targeted advertising.

In general, technology giants like Meta are subject to higher regulatory standards in the EU than smaller companies.

In July, the European Commission informed Meta that preliminary results suggest that the pay-or-consent model violates EU law.

Meta now has the right to examine the evidence collected by the EU and to defend itself.

Meta emphasizes that it is acting within the law and that “subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model in many industries.”

The company is currently in discussions with the ICO, the UK data protection authority, about the future introduction of the model in the UK.

A company spokesman said they were participating “constructively” and would provide further information in the future. No decisions had been made yet.