Should businesses really consider making a product fully free, with no ads, nada? During the IAPP video call on the EDPB’s view on its “Consent or Pay” opinion, I was struck by the following instruction for businesses: “first, consider whether you can provide it [= the service/product] for free”. [see at 35m21s in the video linked to below]
Full quote, in a section on the idea of requesting payment for any service: “the European Data Protection Board first says: ‘consider whether you can provide it for free’; then, let’s say, as a second step, if this is not possible based on the case by case assessment, your fee needs to be appropriate; so large online platforms should consider whether the fee is appropriate at all, and then what amount is appropriate”. [Reworded: “large online platforms should consider whether even asking for any fee is appropriate, and then what amount would be appropriate”]
For some, the EDPB’s rep meant to say “if you have a version of the service that is funded by behavioural ads, first consider offering a Free Alternative Without Behavioural Advertising” (“FAWBA”).
[Post edited due to a comment below suggesting that’s the case]
In the Opinion, the EDPB repeatedly stressed the idea of the FAWBA as a *further alternative*, in addition to (i) a paying version and (ii) a behavioural ads version. It hints once at the idea of it being an alternative to only a behavioural ads version, but it never supports any recommendation to consider this systematically or as a preliminary assessment to be made before making a paying version available.
The comments of the EDPB’s rep clearly are not related to the case where there are already two options – they come before even considering whether a paying version should be made available.
As mentioned in my critical analysis (link below), the EDPB does not explain its aversion to profile-based advertising or why ads based on limited data (= contextual ads with the usual and necessary features) would technically be any different (also requiring consent according to their latest views on the ePrivacy Directive). So ultimately “free” without ads would be the only remaining option.
Some may dream of that, I’m certain, but businesses are not charities, and offering something entirely for free, without any ads or payment by the user, is usually reserved to small freebies or market-grab operations. At one point, someone *will* have to pay.
I think it was a slip of the tongue, but an unfortunate one to have in the first public comments of the EDPB on its Opinion. I hope they will be clearer next time.
Perhaps something we’ll discuss in the following IAPP video call – where I will be speaking! More info on that call plus other events: https://lnkd.in/dEDMVCwM
Video with the EDPB’s view: https://lnkd.in/dUwPdQuv
My critical analysis of the “Consent or Pay” Opinion: https://lnkd.in/e5JZnDPS
IAPP – International Association of Privacy Professionals
privacy data protection GDPR
Did this analysis get you thinking? Reach out!
DataLaws.net is entirely open-access, and instead of getting your data in exchange for this content, how about another trade? If this commentary saved you research time or sparked an idea, feel free to invite me over for tea, chai or a hot chocolate next time you are around Brussels or Antwerp - or invite me over to your offices for a chat!
Get in touch ↗ Let's connect on LinkedIn ↗