Pay-or-consent: the false equivalence trap

The controversy centres on whether a user can freely consent to tracking when the only alternative is paying a fee. Under GDPR, consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. If the paid option is not genuinely equivalent — for example, it costs a significant amount or lacks core features — then the user is effectively coerced into accepting tracking. The key contrast is between a fair choice and a false one: a binary model often creates the latter.

To spot the violation in an exam scenario, check whether the paid alternative offers the same core service without tracking. If it does not, consent is likely invalid. Also remember that gatekeepers under the DMA face stricter rules: they cannot combine personal data across services without explicit opt-in consent, which a pay-or-consent model may bypass. A quick elimination trick: if the user has no realistic, free, non-tracking option, the model fails.

To remember this, think of a shop that lets you enter free only if you accept ads, or pay £10 to enter without them. That is not a fair choice — it is a paywall for privacy. The core test is whether the user can access the service without tracking and without paying. If not, the consent is not freely given.