Meta is facing a double data protection showdown on both sides of the English Channel with EU chiefs being urged to rule on its controversial subscription service and mass legal action in the UK over forced data sharing.
Concerns over the Meta’s ad-free subscription service for Facebook and Instagram were first aired back in November, when the Max Schrems-backed privacy organisation NOYB filed a complaint with the Austrian data protection authority.
It argued that the scheme – which can cost users up to €12.99 per month for an ad-free version of both social media platforms – was not only illegal and pitiful, it takes data protection back more than a 100 years, when privacy was only available for the rich.
Now NOYB has been joined by 27 other civil rights organisations in calling for the European Data Protection Board – the top governing body in the EU – to issue a binding opinion on the matter. The UK is not involved as the subscription service is not available here.
Max Schrems said: “Under EU law, users have to have a ‘free and genuine choice’ when they consent to being tracked for personalised advertisements. In reality, they’re forced to pay a fee to protect their fundamental right to privacy.
“Users deal with hundreds of websites, apps and companies every month. All of them could simply charge a ‘privacy fee’ if you don’t agree that your data is collected, shared or sold. If you do the maths, this adds up to thousands of euros per year.
“Some 28 civil society organisations now call on the authorities to ensure that fundamental rights do not become a commodity or a luxury good. This is likely to be the most important decision over EU privacy rights in a decade.”
Meanwhile, a UK judge has given the greenlight to a new case against Meta, which it is claimed could be worth up to £3bn to Facebook users.
The class action is being brought on behalf of 45 million Facebook users by legal academic Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, who claims that “Facebook has struck an unfair bargain with its users” over collection of their data on their activities outside of the main site.
This, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen maintains, means users are forced to give up this information as a condition of accessing the Facebook platform, in a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer.
Her original claim was refused in 2023, but a revised version has now been accepted. The claim, which will be heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, will be valid until early 2026, and is seeking £3.1bn in compensation for those who had Facebook accounts between February 2016 and October 2023.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Meta rebuts the claims, insisting they “remain entirely without merit and we will vigorously defend against them”.
The tech giant added that it is “committed to giving people meaningful control” of the information they share on its platforms and to “invest heavily to create tools that allow them to do so”.
Related stories
Meta ad-free service faces data protection showdown
Meta subscription launch ‘not just about making money’
Meta dragged kicking and screaming into ad opt-out
Meta bows to GDPR ruling to block personalised ads
Meta GDPR consent fine €4bn short, says Max Schrems
Meta the villain again as consent for ads is ruled illegal
Meta faces mega fine as ad policy is declared illegal
