This report analyzes the “pay or okay” consent model used by news publishers in Europe, evaluating its economic implications, impact on user consent, and the sustainability of media funding.
The “Pay or Okay” model, also known as “consent or pay,” has become a controversial practice among news publishers and digital platforms across several EU Member States, including Austria, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. This model requires users to either consent to tracking and data processing or pay a fee to refuse consent, usually through a subscription. Although framed by proponents as a necessary economic solution to fund quality journalism, the reality is more complex. Research shows that digital advertising—especially the use of personal data for targeted ads—accounts for only about 5% of total press revenue, with print circulation and other sources making up the majority. This model leads to significantly inflated costs for consumers refusing consent and raises serious questions about whether consent is truly “freely given,” a core requirement under the GDPR.
Economic analysis reveals that rejecting consent through pay or okay banners can cost an average of €1,264 annually across the top 100 websites in pay or okay jurisdictions, sometimes exceeding the total digital advertising revenue per user. For instance, in France, consumers pay approximately 800% of the advertising revenue that publishers earn per user simply to refuse tracking on one website. Furthermore, these fees primarily target a small fraction of heavy users (around 0.1%) who opt for the pay option, while the vast majority are nudged into consenting through what amounts to a financial penalty. This practice artificially inflates consent rates to above 99%, far beyond actual user willingness, which studies estimate at between 0.16% and 7%. Such disparity suggests that pay or okay mechanisms undermine the GDPR’s principle of freely given consent by coercing users financially.
From a legal standpoint, pay or okay models conflict with GDPR requirements on consent. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have emphasized that consent must be a genuine choice without detriment or undue burden. The high fees and complex processes involved in refusing consent via pay or okay banners violate this principle by making withdrawal of consent harder than giving it. Moreover, allowing such models exclusively for news media would create inconsistencies and likely trigger legal challenges from other sectors like social media platforms and apps. Overall, pay or okay models pose significant legal and ethical risks by transforming consent into a commodified transaction rather than a free expression of user choice.
Key Takeaways
- The pay or okay model forces users to either accept tracking or pay high fees to refuse consent, mostly via subscriptions.
- Digital advertising accounts for only about 5% of press revenue; print circulation and other sources dominate funding.
- Rejecting consent costs consumers an average of €1,264 per year on top websites, often exceeding publishers’ ad revenue per user.
- Only a small minority (about 0.1%) choose to pay; most are coerced into consenting, inflating consent rates above 99%.
- The disparity between actual willingness to consent (0.16%-7%) and consent rates under pay or okay indicates non-freely given consent.
- Pay or okay violates GDPR principles requiring consent to be freely given and withdrawal to be as easy as giving consent.
- High reject fees disproportionately impact low-income users, undermining equitable access to digital services.
- Pay or okay is unlikely to save struggling news media financially but is rather used as a political tool against GDPR enforcement.
- Legal inconsistencies arise if pay or okay is allowed for news media but prohibited for large platforms, risking extensive litigation.
- The practice risks making data protection rights accessible only to those who can afford to pay.
