This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Live
|Webinar
Pay or ok: the future rules of the consumer data game?
What does Meta's 'pay or ok' consent changes mean for the future of consumer online services and privacy?
Thu | Dec 14 |
15:00
CET
About this Webinar
Multiple newspaper outlets, social media platforms and streaming services have introduced a subscription model for those who want to use the service but don’t want to consent to sharing their personal data to support advertising.
We want to Start Talking about what this means for the future of consumer online services that have grown up in synergy with the ad-based business model
Tobias Judin
Head of International at the Norwegian Data Protection Authority
See on LinkedIn
Liz Brandt
CEO and co-founder, Ctrl-Shift
See on LinkedIn
Nathalie Laneret
VP Government Affairs and Public Policy, Criteo
See on LinkedIn
Agustin Reyna
Director, Legal and Economic Affairs, BEUC
See on LinkedIn
Top questions:
01
Are we heading to a future of ‘pay to play’ and is this the biggest disruption to the way consumers access online services that have become gateways to the digital world?
02
Is this ‘forced consent’ or ‘consumer choice’?
03
Shouldn’t consumers expect privacy to be respected whether they pay for a service or not?
04
How can an appropriate, affordable price be set for a paid, non-targeted advertising service?
05
What implications does it have if two options are on the table?
Quotes
❛❛
❛❛
❜❜
The question arises: if users are given a choice between ads and no ads, why does it still constitute consent under data protection law for data processing? While Spotify charges users and contributes to music production, Meta, on the other hand, doesn't pay for content; it merely provides a platform. Conditionality (demonstrating the necessity of certain data processing) and voluntary, free choice (especially when a platform exclusively offers functions others may not) are crucial legal considerations.
❜❜
Tobias Judin
Head of International Section, Norwegian Data Protection Authority
❛❛
❛❛
❜❜
Close coordination with competition authorities is essential on what constitutes an excessive price. Data protection is a fundamental right but not an absolute right. We need to take a balanced approach, considering the various perspectives of different stakeholders, including consumers, online services, publishers, advertisers, etc. Whether you pay or get the service for free GDPR covers you
❜❜
Nathalie Laneret
Nathalie Laneret
❛❛
❛❛
❜❜
There are many valuable uses for our data beyond targeted advertising. I now have a service price, and I will decide to pay for value. Imagine having access to broader data—sleep patterns, exercise, financial data—and consider the possibilities. What if we could understand our mental health based on our sleep and exercise habits? These are intriguing possibilities beyond the conventional selling of products using your data
❜❜
Liz Brandt
CEO, Ctrl-Shift
❛❛
❛❛
❜❜
Consumers lack a genuine choice. While behavioral advertising itself is legal, engaging in advertising practices that violate the law is not. Meta misleads consumers with the illusion of a paying and free option (nothing is ever for free), as users essentially pay through the provision of their data. One should not have to pay for privacy.
❜❜
Agustín Reyna
Director, Legal and Economic Affairs, BEUC