At the end of 2023, Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) introduced a novel user-choice model for personal data usage in advertising across Europe. Unofficially dubbed ‘Pay or Consent,’ this model offers two alternatives:
Paid subscription without personalized ads: users pay a monthly fee (around €7.99) to use these social networks without personalized advertising, meaning Meta commits to not using the subscriber’s personal data for ad targeting. In other words, paying buys extra privacy.
Free use with personalized ads: users choose to continue using the platforms for free but consent to having their personal data collected and processed so that displayed ads are targeted based on their profile and activities. In this case, Meta gathers information like social media activity, contacts, and device data to segment the ads shown.
The subscription was initially launched in November 2023 for users in the European Union, European Economic Area, and Switzerland. At first, the advertised standard price was €9.99 per month (web version) or €12.99 on iOS/Android, covering one account; additional linked accounts would incur extra monthly costs. However, by November 2024, after dialogue with regulators, Meta reduced these prices by roughly 40%, setting them at €5.99 (web) and €7.99 (mobile devices) per month, with €4-5 for each extra account. This reduction aimed to make the service more accessible and address concerns from European authorities.
Why did Meta adopt this measure? (GDPR and regulatory pressure)
The paid model’s implementation in Europe was not voluntary but driven by strict regulatory requirements. Two European regulations are central to this discussion: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The GDPR, in effect since 2018, reinforced the need for free, informed, and unambiguous consent for processing personal data—especially for purposes like behavioral advertising. The DMA, more recent, imposes specific obligations on big tech to promote competition and greater user protection. For example, the DMA prohibits extensive user tracking for targeted advertising without explicit consent.
Given the European scenario, the question arises: could Brazil’s LGPD enforce a similar model here?
Although Meta has not yet officially implemented a personalized-ad-free subscription program in Brazil, there are signs this could change. The main driver would be the evolving enforcement of the LGPD. In recent years, Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) has become more active and stringent in overseeing major tech companies. For instance, in July 2024, the ANPD ordered the suspension of parts of Meta’s new privacy policy in Brazil, which allowed using user-posted data to train AI systems, citing potential LGPD violations. In its decision, the authority pointed to issues like inadequate legal basis, lack of transparency, and limitations on user rights, even imposing daily fines for non-compliance.
While this specific case involved data use for AI, the message is clear and applicable elsewhere: the ANPD does not hesitate to intervene against practices it deems abusive or legally unsupported. Personalized advertising could become a future target.
Another factor is international alignment. Global companies often seek policy uniformity for operational practicality. If Meta has already built the infrastructure for a ‘no ads’ subscription model in Europe, it’s plausible it may consider expanding it to other regions as regulatory demands arise.
Although there is (so far) no explicit LGPD requirement to offer an ad-free version, the law does mandate full transparency about what data is collected and for what purpose. If a social network extensively uses personal data for ad revenue, this must be very clear to users, who in turn have the right to withhold or withdraw consent. A lack of alternatives—forcing users to accept targeted ads or leave the service—could be interpreted as invalid consent (due to coercion) under the LGPD. In this sense, offering a paid, data-free alternative could validate consent for those opting for the free version. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the ANPD or even the judiciary questioning the freedom of Brazilian users’ consent if they lack real choice. While a paid subscription may be controversial (as it involves charging for privacy), it at least materializes a choice—which could be legally defensible.
So, could this ‘pay or consent’ model happen in Brazil? Theoretically, yes, and there are both legal and strategic arguments to suggest it’s only a matter of time before we see something similar.
On the other hand, challenges exist. Unlike the EU, Brazil lacks a combined regulatory ecosystem like GDPR + DMA + DSA; the LGPD operates alone here. There are also economic considerations: the ad-supported free model enables broad access to social media. Charging a subscription may not be well-received by many Brazilian users, and Meta naturally fears losing engagement (and ad revenue) in a key market. Thus, the company may adopt a gradual approach: first, increasing transparency and easing opt-outs from personalized ads; then, if needed, testing an ad-free subscription with small groups or specific regions before broader rollout under concrete regulatory pressure.
In conclusion, the LGPD already carries the potential to transform digital marketing in Brazil. If the idea of paying €7.99/month for privacy once seemed distant, it’s no longer unthinkable. The EU has shown a path, and while Brazil won’t simply copy-paste solutions, the underlying logic is the same: giving users real decision-making power over their data. Privacy professionals, compliance officers, and digital law experts should stay alert—soon, they may need to advise clients or companies on subscription vs. personalized ad models here, too. When that happens, it will confirm that the data protection culture, driven by the LGPD, has truly changed the game in Brazil’s market.
