Therefore, Meta would be opting for the same approach as the websites in the block, which comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which details that consent to tracking Information must be informed, specific and freely given.
Meta spokesperson Matt Polland did not confirm or deny the Wall Street Journal report, but he did highlight a paragraph from a ruling by the EU Court of Justice, which states that while users can refuse to give consent to tracking information, they should not be left without the possibility of using the platform in its entirety.
According to the Court, companies must provide “an equivalent alternative not accompanied by such data processing operations (…) if necessary for an appropriate fee”, so this would be Meta’s way to keep its business at bay. despite the restrictions.
“Meta believes in the value of free services supported by personalized ads. However, we continue to explore options to ensure we comply with evolving regulatory requirements,” Polland told TechCrunch.
This series of measures would respond to the controversy between the company and the EU, which has sought to limit the company’s surveillance power over the personal data of its users. In fact, Meta had to pay more than $140 million at the beginning of the year for privacy fines.
On the other hand, the option to pay to avoid seeing ads has also been criticized by groups defending privacy rights in the EU, such as noyb, whose founder, Max Schrems, stated that “fundamental rights cannot be for sale.” ”.
“Are we going to pay for the right to vote or the right to freedom of expression? This would mean that only the rich can enjoy these rights at a time when many people are struggling to make ends meet,” he noted.
In addition to considering it an excessive measure, since he said that it would be a matter of paying only to publish or enter the platform, there would also be no prohibition for Meta to stop implementing other types of advertising that do not require the processing of user data.