Meta Risks Sanctions Over 'Sneaky' Ad-Free Plans Confusing Users, EU Says (arstechnica.com) 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The European Commission (EC) has finally taken action to block Meta's heavily criticized plan to charge a subscription fee to users who value privacy on its platforms. Surprisingly, this step wasn't taken under laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Instead, the EC announced Monday that Meta risked sanctions under EU consumer laws if it could not resolve key concerns about Meta's so-called "pay or consent" model. Meta's model is seemingly problematic, the commission said, because Meta "requested consumers overnight to either subscribe to use Facebook and Instagram against a fee or to consent to Meta's use of their personal data to be shown personalized ads, allowing Meta to make revenue out of it." Because users were given such short notice, they may have been "exposed to undue pressure to choose rapidly between the two models, fearing that they would instantly lose access to their accounts and their network of contacts," the EC said. To protect consumers, the EC joined national consumer protection authorities, sending a letter to Meta requiring the tech giant to propose solutions to resolve the commission's biggest concerns by September 1.
That Meta's "pay or consent" model may be "misleading" is a top concern because it uses the term "free" for ad-based plans, even though Meta "can make revenue from using their personal data to show them personalized ads." It seems that while Meta does not consider giving away personal information to be a cost to users, the EC's commissioner for justice, Didier Reynders, apparently does. "Consumers must not be lured into believing that they would either pay and not be shown any ads anymore, or receive a service for free, when, instead, they would agree that the company used their personal data to make revenue with ads," Reynders said. "EU consumer protection law is clear in this respect. Traders must inform consumers upfront and in a fully transparent manner on how they use their personal data. This is a fundamental right that we will protect." Additionally, the EC is concerned that Meta users might be confused about how "to navigate through different screens in the Facebook/Instagram app or web-version and to click on hyperlinks directing them to different parts of the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy to find out how their preferences, personal data, and user-generated data will be used by Meta to show them personalized ads." They may also find Meta's "imprecise terms and language" confusing, such as Meta referring to "your info" instead of clearly referring to consumers' "personal data." A Meta spokesperson said in a statement: "Subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries. Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and we are confident it complies with European regulation."
That Meta's "pay or consent" model may be "misleading" is a top concern because it uses the term "free" for ad-based plans, even though Meta "can make revenue from using their personal data to show them personalized ads." It seems that while Meta does not consider giving away personal information to be a cost to users, the EC's commissioner for justice, Didier Reynders, apparently does. "Consumers must not be lured into believing that they would either pay and not be shown any ads anymore, or receive a service for free, when, instead, they would agree that the company used their personal data to make revenue with ads," Reynders said. "EU consumer protection law is clear in this respect. Traders must inform consumers upfront and in a fully transparent manner on how they use their personal data. This is a fundamental right that we will protect." Additionally, the EC is concerned that Meta users might be confused about how "to navigate through different screens in the Facebook/Instagram app or web-version and to click on hyperlinks directing them to different parts of the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy to find out how their preferences, personal data, and user-generated data will be used by Meta to show them personalized ads." They may also find Meta's "imprecise terms and language" confusing, such as Meta referring to "your info" instead of clearly referring to consumers' "personal data." A Meta spokesperson said in a statement: "Subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries. Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and we are confident it complies with European regulation."
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of value lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I really hate to side with Zuckerberg, but . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, they wan the paid version for free for all citizens of the EU?
No. They want for EU citizens to have a realistic amount of time and actually accurate information to make a decision.
So, why are you siding with Zuckerberg again?
Re: I really hate to side with Zuckerberg, but . . (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Make FB paid for everyone in the EU, then give a credit if you consent to tracking. Now they can't say it is coercion, you are freely agreeing to receive payment in exchange for consenting to being tracked.
Re: I really hate to side with Zuckerberg, but . . (Score:4, Informative)
They never said having to pay was "coercion" in principle. They said forcing people on short notice to decide whether to pay or not and giving them inaccurate information at the same time was unacceptable.
Re:I really hate to side with Zuckerberg, but . . (Score:4, Interesting)
The online ad industry could pivot back to a non-tracked based mechanism. It doesn't have to collect any personal info to still get the ads out.
I won't siding with the Zuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Why do advertisers want to show their ads to the people most likely to respond to them, and why would people want to see the ads they are most likely to be interested in? Advertisers could just blast advertisements indiscriminately, in a manner that wastes time and money because it's economically inefficient. What's to lose? (/s)
Re: (Score:3)
I would totally agree with you. I'm all for targeted advertising.
However...
That does NOT happen as it should.
While I do receive some targeted ads on Facebook (see below), most are not targeted, by any measure, unless you are willing to define "targeted" as "all people from $COUNTRY between ages 18 and 80".
Most ads I receive on Facebook are:
- Not related to my interests, at all. These random ads keep appearing over and over again, I sometimes get them 3, 4, 5 times in 10 ads.
- Fakes, scams and the like. This
Re: (Score:2)
Targetting was done all the time before the Web - without any tracking of individuals. The two mechanisms are independent.
Re: (Score:1)
Targetting was done all the time before the Web - without any tracking of individuals. The two mechanisms are independent.
Arguably targetting has disappeared now. They're just blasting more than ever because it's cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
The online ad industry could pivot back to a non-tracked based mechanism. It doesn't have to collect any personal info to still get the ads out.
I won't siding with the Zuck.
And the sad thing is, most of them probably wont go out of business as selling advertising is 99.9999% selling snake oil. They just wont be able to get extra profit selling private data.
Re: (Score:2)
The online ad industry could pivot back to a non-tracked based mechanism. It doesn't have to collect any personal info to still get the ads out.
Have you ever spoken with a marketing person? Since the dawn of the internet age they've been absolutely obsessed with collecting user data. Hell, we have a captive dealer network and our previous marketing director wanted to capture every detail of their computers on our ordering site "just in case." In case what? He had no idea, but he wanted that data. Good luck convincing ANYONE involved in the advertising industry that they don't need to track users. They feel like they need it the way a crack addict n
Re: (Score:2)
I assume by "they" you mean the EU. In that case, no. The EU court is fine with Facebook having ads, but the EU citizens have a right to their personal data, that means they must be allowed to choose whether their data is used to deliver personalized ads. Essentially, an EU citizen has the right to tell Facebook that their ads can not be personalized, and their personal data cannot be shared with advertisers. It's not much different than TV broadcast adverts.
"Risks" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, they're still better than the US, where laws respecting individual privacy are a joke and all three branches of government are openly bought and sold by all-powerful corporations.
Thanks, EU! (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:3)
It's not about ad free (Score:2)
It's about tracking free. EU citizens have a right to opt-out of tracking. Meta put a price tag on that right.
And if you can't run ads without tracking, than that's not a reason to ignore the law, but to change how you run ads (at least for the people opting out of tracking)