: 'Deserves fair compensation for the valuable and innovative services'? Which ones are those then?

Meta has come out swinging following the European Commission’s decision that its pay-or-consent model falls foul of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

In a post, the company stated: “This decision is both incorrect and unlawful, and we are appealing it.” It then cites previous judgments to support its argument that it should be permitted to display personalized ads to users who don’t want a paid subscription.

“Meta,” it said, “is the only company in Europe unable to offer both a subscription-based and a free ad-supported service. Instead, Meta is required to offer a free, reduced-ad service – less personalized ads – that leads to poorer outcomes for users, advertisers, and platforms.”

According to Meta, national courts and data protection authorities, including in France, Denmark, and Germany, have given “consistent support” for “business models that provide a paid subscription alternative to consent for personal data use for personalized ads.”

But not the European Commission, which handed down a €200 million ($228 million) fine for the Meta’s “consent or pay” ad model in April.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    4·
    5 hours ago

    Meta said that “it is required to offer a free, reduced-ad service that leads to poorer outcomes for users, advertisers, and platforms.”

    Oh, fuck off. Targeted advertisements don’t help users with anything other than spending money on things they don’t need. They lived perfectly fine before seeing the ad, they don’t need what it’s trying to peddle.

    The only poorer outcomes are for Meta and their advertisers. Don’t try and frame this as though it would hurt actual people, Meta.