UK flag US flag FR flag
| |

Consent or pay: Can you put a price on privacy?

Consent or pay: Can you put a price on privacy?
Opinion

Should UK publishers be allowed to mandate that readers choose between their rights and their wallets? ‘Consent or pay’ sets a dangerous precedent in which rights are conflated with services.

The full extent of data privacy never really “stuck “with me until, as an American living and working in Europe, I realised that here privacy is viewed as a basic human right, protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with things like freedom of speech and assembly. That was my “ah-ha” moment.

Flush with my new-found appreciation, I looked at privacy infringements a bit differently — even deeper, you might say. So I was really troubled when I learned that a growing number of European and UK publishers are cheapening this foundational right in what many observers consider a controversial practice called “consent or pay”.

This tactic forces users to choose between surrendering personal information to countless data brokers or paying a fee — to protect something that shouldn’t be for sale.

Both the UK and the EU have strong legal frameworks that cast doubt on whether this model complies with data protection laws. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published guidance on the issue earlier this year, stipulating that “consent providers using the tactic assure there is no power imbalance, that the fee is appropriate and that users’ choices are presented in a fair manner”.

This verdict is seen by many in the industry as a “hall pass” for publishers to practise “consent or pay”, but that hall is a minefield for anyone trying to employ it.

Concerns to consider

Wading a bit deeper into that legal danger zone, here are specific issues the ICO pointed to:

• Privacy by design and dark patterns: UK GDPR mandates privacy by design (“data protection by design and default”), yet “consent or pay” nudges users into surrendering their data and employs coercive design tactics… by default.

• Power imbalance: Users should not be obligated to decide to either pay to maintain their private lives or submit to invasive tracking.

• Appropriate fees: Who decides what is “fair” pricing for privacy? A fee set too high becomes a de facto punishment for exercising a right.

• Equivalence: The service should be equally available regardless of whether a user consents to tracking or not. Yet, in practice, paywalls often degrade user experience to push users towards data surrender.

In the EU, the European Data Protection Board has taken a much stronger stance, unequivocally stating that a third option be presented to users that involves neither payment nor identity forfeiture.

Despite these warnings, some UK publishers, including The Guardian, The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Express, have still deployed “consent or pay”. By doing so, they’re forcing users into making an impossible choice: give up your personal data or pay up.

Fundamental right

Should UK publishers be allowed to mandate that readers choose between their rights and their wallets? Privacy must remain a fundamental, non-negotiable right — not a luxury for those who can afford it.

Allowing private companies to put a price on your right to privacy sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine if other rights were subject to the same logic.

For instance, what if a hotel offered guests a discount if they agreed not to leave negative online reviews? Would people hold steadfast to their freedom of speech or give up that right if the price was right? Or imagine if a landlord offered lower rent to tenants who agreed to never relocate, curtailing their freedom of movement.

Supporters of “consent or pay” argue that it is no different to traditional paywalls; yet paywalls charge for content, not our civil rights.

Users who pay at the wall get access to premium journalism; those who do not can access some content, or none, but aren’t presented with the slippery choice of giving up a right they may not choose to give up. They can simply find premium content elsewhere.

Dangerous precedent

“Consent or pay” models compel users to give up something intrinsic: their privacy. It is not a payment for additional content but a fee to avoid exploitation.

This distinction is crucial. Not everyone is entitled to free news, but everyone is entitled to privacy. Paywalls and “consent or pay” are fundamentally different models with vastly different implications for user rights.

“Consent or pay” sets a dangerous precedent in which rights are conflated with services. This should concern every citizen, policymaker and business leader committed to upholding digital rights.

UK publishers, you have a choice. Either respect user privacy and find ethical, transparent business models or choose the path of regulatory scrutiny, public backlash and a small army of compliance lawyers.

Privacy is not a privilege for the wealthy. It is and should remain a right for all.

Ben Williams is director of advocacy at Eyeo

Nick Drew, CEO, Fuse Insights, on 25 Apr 2025
“As a user I whole-heartedly applaud your commentary - I resent this forced choice of "oh, not willing to pay £10/ month for this? In that case you surrender all rights to your data" for formerly free content. And the European Commission's fining of Meta this week specifically related to the fact that Meta's 'consent or pay' options broke its rules on providing an equivalent service without the requirement of consenting to data use. But as someone in the media industry I can see that it may not be so black and white. Publishers justifiably would say that the content they produce costs money to do so (even if it's just the cost of someone overseeing the AI-churnalism machine), and by limiting their ability to target ads, non-consenting users are reducing their means to pay the costs of creating that content. It's not wholly convincing - The Sun hasn't shown how not allowing personalised ads costs them £5/user/month, for example - but there's clearly a case to be made.”
Geoff Inns, Founder / MD, Filta, on 25 Apr 2025
“Eyeo has a vested interest in ensuring that users are able to reduce the level of advertising presented by publishers whose business model depends upon it, so this view, dressed up as a cry for privacy, is based on a commercial interest. Publishers have a right to charge for access to their content howsoever they choose, whether by subscription or advertising. They have the right to choose the format and quantity of the advertising on their websites because it is their investment to create the content. If a user doesn't like it, they can simply choose to visit another publisher who operates a model they do agree with. What is questionable is where third party intermediaries disrupt the publisher business model in pursuit of their own commercial interests - such as Eyeo. Consent or pay is a model that reminds the user that there is a cost to consuming professionally produced content, and that in comes down to a simple choice: meet the publisher on their very reasonable terms, or go elsewhere.”

Media Jobs