EU's hostility towards Meta's “Pay or Okay” model is misguided as the model does not force users to use Meta's platforms and it has been deemed GDPR compliant
“Nobody's forcing you to use this” is such a disingenuous take. X: Jacob Eiting / @jeiting : @eric_seufert i think we're learning that the EC's interpretation of the DMA is that they get to decide your business model Kay Jebelli / @kayjebelli : The investigation into #Meta is unlike any of the others, and really pushes the boundaries of the EC's DMA powers, and portends a lot of the complication and drama we can expect in the years ahead. [image] Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Caution: there exists a number of “analysts” who produce full throated defenses of Meta leaning into its talking points then earn retweets by their proxy lobbyists. In this case, you have an analyst arguing Meta should be able to force users to pay or consent to data sharing. 1/2 [image] Jason Kint / @jason_kint : This ignores core decision in German on antitrust integration with privacy and the main purpose of the DMA and it stretches ECJ's nonbinding language as Meta did. Same analyst that was weirdly defending Facebook in March 2018 days after its biggest scandal. So so strange. 2/2 Eric Seufert / @eric_seufert : The European Commission's hostility towards the Pay or Okay model is misguided. The DMA does not mandate that gatekeepers make every possible business model available to monetize their products, & Pay or Okay has already survived scrutiny under the GDPR. https://mobiledevmemo.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The Commission’s DMA investigation arrives after consumer groups challenged Meta’s €9.99+ EU subscription as a price for privacy and 36 MEPs urged Meta to withdraw the choice. The commentary’s defense of the model therefore sits inside an active dispute over what meaningful consent requires on a large platform.
The argument also follows years of pressure on Meta’s data-driven advertising practices, including the Irish privacy regulator’s €390M GDPR fine. The key issue is not simply whether users have an alternative, but whether that alternative satisfies overlapping EU competition and privacy expectations.
First-order effects
- Meta faces a direct test of whether its EU subscription-or-data-use design can remain in place under the DMA, even as commentary argues that it is GDPR-compliant.
- EU users and advertisers are exposed to potential changes in how Meta obtains consent and monetizes users who decline personalized advertising.
Second-order effects
- A restrictive Commission finding would force other large platforms considering paid privacy or consent-based tiers to reassess their European product and pricing designs.
- The case sharpens the practical overlap between DMA enforcement and GDPR-based consent rules, increasing the compliance burden for platforms whose advertising depends on data access.
Third-order effects
- If regulators treat a paid alternative as insufficient to validate consent, European platform regulation could move beyond disclosure and choice toward scrutiny of the economic terms of those choices.
- The outcome may help define whether gatekeepers can use subscriptions to preserve ad-targeting economics, or must build less data-dependent default experiences for users who decline tracking.
The trend: This is one test case in the EU’s broader shift toward regulating how dominant platforms convert user choice and personal data into advertising revenue.