Meta is reintroducing its controversial “pay or consent” advertising model in the UK after facing regulatory rejection in the EU. Under the new scheme, British users of Facebook and Instagram will be given a stark choice: either allow Meta to use their personal data for targeted ads or pay a monthly subscription to avoid ads. The cost is set at £2.99 per month for web users and £3.99 per month for iOS and Android app users. This move follows negotiations with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which welcomed the change as giving users “meaningful transparency and choice.” The ICO emphasized that Meta had lowered its pricing during discussions to offer a more balanced option. However, critics—including privacy advocacy groups—argue the model still penalizes users who wish to withhold consent and fails to fully respect data rights. Meanwhile, the EU’s stricter regulatory regime deemed prior versions of Meta’s pay-or-consent plan noncompliant with its Digital Markets Act and fined the company €200 million for its prior approach. In contrast, the UK’s regulatory stance appears more accommodating, potentially positioning Britain as a testbed for Meta’s subscription-based ad strategy.
Source links: The Verge, Reuters
Key Takeaways
– Meta’s “pay or consent” model gives UK users a binary choice: consent to targeted advertising or pay a monthly fee for an ad-free experience.
– The UK’s ICO appears supportive, having negotiated lower pricing and framing the change as improved transparency, while critics warn the model still coerces consent and undermines data rights.
– The UK rollout contrasts sharply with the EU’s rejection and regulatory fines over prior versions of the scheme, highlighting diverging regulatory environments.
In-Depth
Meta’s renewed push to implement a “pay or consent” advertising model in the UK marks a bold shift in how the social media giant balances its heavy reliance on ad revenue with growing calls for data privacy and user control. Under the new plan, UK Facebook and Instagram users will be asked whether they consent to their personal data being used for targeted advertising—or else pay a fee to avoid ads altogether. Pricing is set at £2.99 per month for web users and £3.99 per month for mobile app users, with each linked account beyond the first incurring an extra charge. The decision to roll this out in the UK—after facing fierce pushback in the EU—reflects Meta’s strategic bet that Britain’s regulatory climate is more permissive.
Negotiations with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office appear to have shaped the terms. The ICO released a statement welcoming the shift toward greater user control and transparency, noting that Meta “significantly lowered” its initial pricing during their engagement. The ICO underscored that people should be given a genuine choice in how their information is used, and pledged to monitor the rollout closely to ensure compliance with UK data laws.
Yet, strong criticism persists. Privacy advocates argue that the model still effectively penalizes users who decline to consent, forcing them to pay to avoid data-driven ads. The Open Rights Group, for example, contends that Meta fails to truly honor the right of users to refuse profiling without cost, and that the model continues to fall short of what meaningful data rights should require. The absence of a middle option—such as an ad experience with reduced personalization—intensifies concerns that the binary choice is coercive rather than genuinely voluntary.
This tension echoes Meta’s prior experience in the EU, where a version of the pay-or-consent model ran afoul of the Digital Markets Act. EU regulators fined Meta €200 million and criticized the scheme for lacking a less-personalized-ads alternative and for placing users in a coercive position. In response to EU regulatory pressure, Meta modified its approach there—offering a third option (less personalized ads) and reducing subscription costs, though regulators still found the model problematic.
By contrast, the UK move appears more accommodating of Meta’s original vision, with fewer regulatory constraints. That divergence may make the UK a proving ground for whether users are willing to pay for ad avoidance—and whether such a model can sustain Meta’s ad-revenue–dominated business. If a substantial share of users acquiesce to targeted ads over paying, Meta could argue the model works in its favor. If many users opt to pay to avoid ads, the company needs to ensure subscription revenue can meaningfully compensate for reduced targeting data.
Either way, this new “consent or pay” model in the UK underscores a rising tension: the era when web services were implicitly “free” in exchange for data may be ending. As regulators push tech platforms toward greater transparency and user control, firms like Meta are testing whether voluntary subscription structures can replace the long-standing ad-funded paradigm. The UK rollout offers a critical case study: if it succeeds, it may encourage similar models elsewhere. If it fails, it could reinforce that data-driven advertising—however controversial—is still deeply embedded in digital business models.