Though apparently Facebook is sticking to its guns that what they do is legal. I'm looking forward to the inevitable billion dollars fine.

And then, still, it wouldn't be a high enough fine.

This behaviour must be discouraged by a binary choice from the authorities: Either you comply and stop your illegal practice or you get to pay a fine that will bankrupt you and all your assets will be seized and sold off.

Inevitable billion dollar fines.

Measured in minutes, hours and days of operation.

> But a Meta spokesperson said: "[...] subscription for no ads complies with EU laws."

More deliberate obfuscation from Meta. The problem isn't ads. Subscription for no ads has been a thing since before Meta even existed, it's never been a problem, and it's not a problem now. The problem is tracking . Meta needs to get rid of tracking and/or make it a whole lot more user-transparent.

"Meta needs to get rid of tracking "

That's all that anyone wants, no alternative solutions, just this. And while they are at it, can they also kindly include Google, Apple, Microsoft and all of the other clown-shows that thrive on tracking.

Exactly. Display ads to raise revenue, just not targeted, personal-data-driven ads.

The French data protection outfit (CNIL) said this rancid behaviour was okay, which has led to quite a number of sites saying "allow our eight hundred partners to track you, or cough up".

The massive elephant in the room is that there's actually a third option - refuse cookies, respect non tracking, and serve up non targetted adverts based upon what the site in question is (like cooking stuff at Marmiton might be more relevant than a new sofa...).

But since everybody is a greedy bastard, that option was swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

Spain's DPA also allows the same behaviour as France. Let's see how they back out of this because they've only been allowing it since January.

I will not trust that individual to respect anything he promises.

I trust that he will find a way to track people who have subscribed and opted out of advertising, will get caught and try to brush it off with another "Oops, sorry Your Honor, we made a mistake. Won't happen again, pinky promise."

And then it will happen again.

As usual, Facebook wants to gaslight not only its users, but also regulators, into thinking that "advertising" equals "tracking". Newsflash: It does not.

The model of "subscribe or see ads" is nothing new, and a valid way to earn money.

But "subscribe or we'll track you all over the internet and across all your devices" is, obviously, not. That is asking the user for a ransom to comply with the law. But according to Meta, that is somehow different from the local branch of the Legitimate Businessmen Club TM showing up at you door asking for a donation so they don't do anything illegal...

"Legitimate Businessmen Club"

Nice data you have there, would be a pity if anything happened to it.....

' a Meta spokesperson said: "Last year, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the subscriptions model is a legally valid way for companies to seek people's consent" '

THe ECJ didn't rule on this -- it was an obiter dictum -- efectively a passing comment -- that any alternative to ads must be 'necessary' and the fee must be 'appropriate. The statement did not thererfore have the force of law to grant anyone the right to seek implied consent via a paywall. The ECJ has now apparently ruled to the contrary.

In one place in the article it says the subscription was to avoid targeted adds which would mean no tracking but it gives room to still show adds.

In another, it's implied that the subscription stops adds being shown, but it says nothing about stopping tracking.

Adds / no adds is one option in and of itself - pay the subscription and no adds, else you get adds. That's fine (unless it's excessive - then along comes methods to block those adds).

BUT tracking is an entirely separate issue: That should always be Consent based.

Oddly, Google are pushing the consent based tracking approach - which is strange considering this is google we're talking about... unless it's them saying 'no one who wants to use our analytics tools can track without consent... except for us!'.

Probably the latter. It's google, after all.

Anyhow: As noted in other comments I've made on this: Paying means you're giving up additional information to Facebook, which negates a chunk of what you think you're paying to avoid. If anything, it just makes things worse as they can now track that payment method, especially if they only offered an 'ad free' experience and said nothing about not tracking you...

"EU tells Meta" ... hurrah ... the Register is able to write "EU" in title when "EU" is meant.

Well done. Keep it up.

it can't, it shouldn't, or else?

The heads of the groups that hand down fines to these companies should have a simple and large clock on the wall that displays FD/m (Facebook Dollars/minute) and use that number to multiply by 3 months worth of time minimum.

They seem far apart, but displaying their sawy in Dollars per Minute helps to put in mind of those tasked with punishing them, how much power they have, how little they have to care about conventional fines and how meaningless conventional fines and legal systems are from the view point of the sentencing body.

And applied in minimums starting at 3 months of yearly time passing, not working hours, but a full quarter of the year in real terms. This means you potentially get 3 of these in a year before your company is running negative and starting to eat into previous years profits. The 4th would be more than a years full profit.

This is the only way they will actually pay attention.

Until such a time, they are minor inconveniences. Meerly a latte in terms of their yearly profits.