At the end of 2023, Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) introduced a new model in Europe giving users a choice regarding the use of their personal data in advertising. Unofficially known as "Pay or Consent," this model offers two alternatives:
Paid subscription without personalized ads: the user pays a monthly fee (about €7.99 per month) to browse these social networks without personalized advertising, meaning Meta commits not to use the subscriber's personal data for ad targeting purposes. In other words, those who pay have extra privacy.
Free use with personalized advertising: the user chooses to continue using the platforms for free, but consents to their personal data being collected and processed so that the displayed ads are targeted according to their profile and activities. In this case, Meta gathers information such as activities on networks, contacts, and the user's device data to target the displayed advertising.
The subscription was initially launched in November 2023 for users in the European Union, European Economic Area, and Switzerland. Initially, the standard advertised price was €9.99 per month (on the web version) or €12.99 on iOS/Android, covering one account; additional linked accounts would incur an extra monthly fee. However, in November 2024, after discussions with regulators, Meta reduced these prices by approximately 40%, to €5.99 (web) and €7.99 (mobile devices) per month, with €4-5 for each additional account. This reduction aimed to make the service more accessible and address the concerns of European authorities.
Why did Meta adopt this measure? (GDPR and regulatory pressure)
The implementation of the paid model in Europe was not voluntary, but driven by strict regulatory requirements. Two European standards are at the center of 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 the processing of personal data – especially for purposes such as behavioral advertising. The more recent DMA imposes specific obligations on big tech companies to promote competition and greater user protection. For example, the DMA began to prohibit extensive user tracking for targeted advertising without explicit consent.
In the European context, the question arises: could the Brazilian LGPD enforce a similar model here?
Although Meta has not yet officially implemented an ad-free subscription program in Brazil, there are indications that this may change. The main driving force would be precisely the evolution of the LGPD application. In recent years, the National Data Protection Authority has become more active and strict in overseeing large technology companies. In July 2024, for example, the ANPD ordered the suspension of parts of Meta's new privacy policy in Brazil, which allowed the use of data published by users to train artificial intelligence systems, citing evidence of violations of the LGPD. In this decision, the authority pointed out issues such as inadequate legal basis, lack of transparency, and limitations on the rights of data subjects, including imposing a daily fine for non-compliance.
Although this specific case was about data use for AI, the message is clear and transferable to other areas: the ANPD does not hesitate to intervene against practices it considers abusive or lacking legal support. Personalized advertising could come into focus in the future.
Another factor to consider is international alignment. Global companies tend to seek a certain uniformity in policies, also for operational practicality. If Meta has already built the infrastructure for a "no ads" subscription model in Europe, it is plausible that they are considering expanding it to other regions according to regulatory demand.
Although there is not (yet) an explicit obligation in the LGPD to offer an ad-free version, the law does impose a duty of full transparency regarding which data is collected and for what purpose. If a social network extensively uses personal data for advertising profit, this must be very clear to the user, who in turn has the right not to consent or to revoke given consents. The lack of alternatives – that is, forcing the user to accept targeted advertising or abandon the service – can be interpreted as invalid consent (due to coercion) under the LGPD. In this sense, offering a paid alternative without data collection can be seen as a way to validate the consent of those who choose to continue with 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 do not have a real choice. The existence of a paid subscription, although potentially controversial (since it involves charging for privacy), at least materializes a choice for the holder – which can be legally defensible.
So, can this "pay or consent" model happen in Brazil? In theory, yes, and there are both legal and strategic arguments to believe that it is only a matter of time before we see something similar.
On the other hand, it is necessary to note challenges. Brazil, unlike the EU, does not have a unified regulatory ecosystem like GDPR + DMA + DSA; the LGPD operates alone on the issue. There are also economic considerations: the free ad-supported model is what enables broad access to social networks. Charging for a subscription may not be well received by a large portion of Brazilian users, and Meta naturally fears losing engagement (and advertising revenue) in an important market. Thus, it is possible for the company to adopt a gradual approach: first, increase transparency and facilitate opting out of personalized ads; then, if necessary, test an ad-free subscription with small groups or specific regions, and only then launch more broadly if there is concrete regulatory pressure.
In conclusion, the LGPD already has the potential to transform the way digital marketing is conducted in Brazil. If the "novelty" of paying €7.99 a month for your privacy seemed distant, today it is no longer unthinkable. The European Union has shown a path, and although Brazil will not simply copy and paste solutions from there, the underlying logic is the same: giving the actual user decision-making power over their data. Privacy, compliance, and digital law professionals should stay alert: they may soon have to advise their clients or companies on subscription models versus personalized ads here as well. And when that happens, it will be the confirmation that the data protection culture, driven by the LGPD, has indeed changed the rules of the game in the Brazilian market.