European Union Accuses Facebook Owner Meta of Breaking Digital Rules with Paid Ad-free Option

FILE PHOTO: A  security guard stands watch by the Meta sign outside the headquarters of Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc in Mountain View, California, US November 9, 2022. REUTERS/Peter DaSilva/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A security guard stands watch by the Meta sign outside the headquarters of Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc in Mountain View, California, US November 9, 2022. REUTERS/Peter DaSilva/File Photo
TT

European Union Accuses Facebook Owner Meta of Breaking Digital Rules with Paid Ad-free Option

FILE PHOTO: A  security guard stands watch by the Meta sign outside the headquarters of Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc in Mountain View, California, US November 9, 2022. REUTERS/Peter DaSilva/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A security guard stands watch by the Meta sign outside the headquarters of Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc in Mountain View, California, US November 9, 2022. REUTERS/Peter DaSilva/File Photo

European Union regulators accused social media company Meta Platforms on Monday of breaching the bloc's new digital competition rulebook by forcing Facebook and Instagram users to choose between seeing ads or paying to avoid them.
Meta has been giving European users the option since November of paying for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram as a way to comply with the continent’s strict data privacy rules, The Associated Press said.
Desktop browser users can pay about 10 euros ($10.50) a month while iOS or Android users will pay roughly 13 euros to avoid being targeted by ads based on their personal data.
The US tech giant rolled out the subscription option after the European Union’s top court ruled that under strict EU data privacy rules, Meta must first get consent before showing ads to users.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said preliminary findings of its investigation show that Meta's “pay or consent” advertising model was in breach of the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Markets Act.
The commission said Meta's model doesn't allow users to exercise their right to “freely consent” to allowing their personal data to be used to target them with online ads.
The commission had opened its investigation shortly after the rulebook, also known as the DMA, took effect in March. It's a sweeping set of regulations aimed at preventing tech “gatekeepers” from cornering digital markets under threat of heavy financial penalties.
“The DMA is there to give back to the users the power to decide how their data is used and ensure innovative companies can compete on equal footing with tech giants on data access,” European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who oversees the bloc's digital policy, said in a statement.
Meta now has a chance to respond to the commission, which must wrap up its investigation by March 2025. The company could face fines worth 10% of its annual global revenues, which could run into the billions of euros.
“Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA," Meta said in a statement. "We look forward to further constructive dialogue with the European Commission to bring this investigation to a close.”
Under the Digital Markets Act, Meta is classed as one of seven online gatekeepers while Facebook, Instagram and its ad business are among about two dozen “core platform services” that need the highest level of scrutiny.



Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Pause Law Threatening TikTok Ban

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
TT

Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Pause Law Threatening TikTok Ban

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP

US President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday urging the Supreme Court to pause a law that would ban TikTok the day before his January 20 inauguration if it is not sold by its Chinese owner ByteDance.

"In light of the novelty and difficulty of this case, the court should consider staying the statutory deadline to grant more breathing space to address these issues," Trump's legal team wrote, to give him "the opportunity to pursue a political resolution."

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, and tried in vain to ban the video app on national security grounds.

The Republican voiced concerns -- echoed by political rivals -- that the Chinese government might tap into US TikTok users' data or manipulate what they see on the platform, AFP reported.

US officials had also voiced alarm over the popularity of the video-sharing app with young people, alleging that its parent company is subservient to Beijing and that the app is used to spread propaganda, claims denied by the company and the Chinese government.

Trump called for a US company to buy TikTok, with the government sharing in the sale price, and his successor Joe Biden went one stage further -- signing a law to ban the app for the same reasons.

Trump has now, however, reversed course.

"Now (that) I'm thinking about it, I'm for TikTok, because you need competition," he recently told Bloomberg.

"If you don't have TikTok, you have Facebook and Instagram -- and that's, you know, that's Zuckerberg."

Facebook, founded by Mark Zuckerberg and part of his Meta tech empire, was among the social media networks that banned Trump after attacks by his supporters on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The ban was driven by concerns that he would use the platform to promote more violence.

Those bans on major social media platforms were later lifted.

In the brief filed on Friday, Trump's lawyer made it clear the president-elect did not take a position on the legal merits of the current case.

"President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute," John Sauer wrote in the amicus curiae -- or "friend of the court" -- brief.

"Instead, he respectfully requests that the court consider staying the act's deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case, thus permitting President Trump's incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case."