At the end of 2023, Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) introduced a groundbreaking model of choice for users in Europe 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: users pay a monthly fee (around €7.99 per month) to browse these social networks without personalized advertising, which means Meta commits not to use the subscriber’s personal data for targeting ads. In other words, those who pay have extra privacy.
Free use with personalized advertising: users choose to continue using the platforms for free but consent 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 the user’s activities on the networks, contacts, and 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 announced standard price was €9.99 per month (on the web version) or €12.99 on iOS/Android, covering one account; additional linked accounts would have an extra monthly cost. However, in November 2024, after dialogue 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 extra account. This reduction aimed to make the service more affordable 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 rather motivated 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 force since 2018, reinforced the need for free, informed, and unequivocal consent for the processing of personal data – especially for purposes such as behavioral advertising. The DMA, more recent, imposes specific obligations on big tech companies to promote competition and provide greater protection to users. For example, the DMA now prohibits extensive user tracking for targeted advertising without explicit consent.
Faced with the European scenario, the question arises: could the Brazilian LGPD force a similar model here?
Although Meta has not officially implemented a subscription program without personalized ads in Brazil, there are indications that this may change. The main driver would be precisely the evolution of the application of the LGPD. In recent years, the National Data Protection Authority has become more active and rigorous in monitoring large technology companies. For example, in July 2024, the ANPD determined the suspension of parts of Meta’s new privacy policy in Brazil, which allowed the use of user-posted data to train artificial intelligence systems, citing indications 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, imposing daily fines for non-compliance.
Although this specific case was about data usage for AI, the message is clear and extendable to other fronts: the ANPD does not hesitate to intervene against practices it deems abusive or legally unsupported. Personalized advertising could potentially come under scrutiny in the future.
Another factor to consider is international alignment. Global companies tend to seek a certain uniformity in policies, even for operational convenience. If Meta has already built the infrastructure for an ‘ad-free’ subscription model in Europe, it is plausible that they may consider expanding it to other regions based on regulatory demand.
Even though there is no (at the moment) explicit obligation in the LGPD to offer an ad-free version, the law does impose the duty of total transparency on what data is collected and for what purpose. If a social network extensively uses personal data for advertising profits, this should be very clear to the user, who in turn has the right to not consent or to revoke given consents. The lack of alternatives – that is, forcing the user to accept targeted advertising or else abandon the service – can be interpreted as an invalid consent (by 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 would not be surprising to see the ANPD or even the Judiciary questioning the freedom of consent of Brazilian users if they do not have a real choice. The existence of a paid subscription, although potentially controversial (as it involves charging for privacy), at least materializes a choice for the data subject – 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 it’s just a matter of time until we see something similar.
On the other hand, there are challenges. Brazil, unlike the EU, does not have a combined regulatory ecosystem like GDPR + DMA + DSA; LGPD acts alone on the issue. There are also economic considerations: the free model supported by ads is what enables broad access to social networks. Charging 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’s possible the company adopts a gradual approach: first, increase transparency and make it easier to opt-out of personalized ads; then, if necessary, test a subscription without ads with small groups or specific regions, and only launch more widely if there is concrete regulatory pressure.
In conclusion, LGPD already has the potential to transform the way digital marketing is done in Brazil. If the ‘novelty’ of paying €7.99 per month for your privacy seemed distant, today it’s no longer unthinkable. The European Union has shown a path, and even though Brazil won’t simply copy and paste solutions from there, the underlying logic is the same: give the user real decision-making power over their data. Privacy, compliance, and digital law professionals should be alert: they might soon have to advise their clients or companies on subscription models vs. personalized ads here as well. And when that happens, it will confirm that the data protection culture, driven by LGPD, has indeed changed the rules of the game in the Brazilian market.
