Consent or pay
data privacy compliance tactic
Consent or pay, also called pay-or-okay, is a compliance tactic used by certain companies, most notably Meta, to drive up the rates at which users consent to data processing under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It consists of presenting the user with a tracking consent notice, but only allowing a binary choice: either the user consents to the data processing, or they are required to pay to use the service, which is otherwise free to use if data processing is consented to. The tactic has been criticised by privacy advocates and non-governmental organisations such as NOYB and Wikimedia Europe, which claim that it is illegal under the GDPR. On 17 April 2024, the European Data Protection Board released a non-binding opinion stating that in most cases, consent-or-pay models do not constitute valid consent within the meaning of the GDPR.
Background
Under the GDPR, the processing of a natural person's personal data is only allowed under six lawful bases: consent, contractual necessity, legal obligation under EU or member state law, public interest, protection of vital interest of an individual, and the processor's legitimate interest.
When the GDPR first came into force in 2018, Meta justified its processing of personal data by claiming that its terms of use constitute a contract under which the user consented to the processing of personal data.
However, this was challenged by Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy activist, who successfully argued that contractual necessity was not a valid basis of data processing when it comes to personalised advertising.
In response to this ruling, Meta changed its lawful basis for personal data processing from contractual necessity to legitimate interest, which was also found not to be a valid basis.
Meta then changed its lawful basis to consent, but chose to implement it in a way where users who consented to personalised advertising could use the service for free, while those who did not were required to pay a monthly subscription fee to continue using the service.
Critics of this consent model have called it "pay-or-okay", claiming that the monthly fee is disproportional and that users are not able to withdraw their consent to tracking as easily as it is given, which the GDPR requires. Massimiliano Gelmi, a data protection lawyer at NOYB, has stated that "The law is clear, withdrawing consent must be as easy as giving it in the first place. It is painfully obvious that paying €251,88 per year to withdraw consent is not as easy as clicking an 'Okay' button to accept the tracking."
On 17 April 2024, the European Data Protection Board released a non-binding opinion stating that in most cases, consent-or-pay models do not constitute valid consent within the meaning of the GDPR.
European Commission investigation and fine
On 1 July 2024, the European Commission, which acts as the EU competition enforcer, announced that it had opened an investigation against Meta under the provisions of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), with the preliminary findings claiming that Meta's approach was not in compliance with the DMA, an assertion that Meta has disputed.
“Consent or pay” enters the record as data privacy compliance tactic. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Consent, data and privacy can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Consent or pay” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Consent, data and privacy provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q126391688. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2024 and 2018.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Consent or pay”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Consent or pay primary sources, Consent or pay archive and Consent research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Consent or pay”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Consent or pay” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.