The Legal Precedent Behind Your New Facebook Subscription Option

Your new option to subscribe to an ad-free Facebook and Instagram in the UK didn’t appear out of thin air; it was built on a crucial legal precedent established by a single citizen’s court case. The entire subscription model is Meta’s response to a legal challenge that affirmed a user’s right to object to data processing for ads.
The case was brought by Tanya O’Carroll, a UK human rights campaigner, who argued that Meta was breaking UK data laws by not allowing her to opt out of personalised advertising. Meta eventually settled the lawsuit and agreed to stop targeting her, a move that set a powerful precedent. The company realised it needed a scalable way to offer this right to all its UK users.
This led directly to the creation of the new subscription service. Priced at £2.99 (web) and £3.99 (mobile) per month, the service functions as the mass-market “opt-out” mechanism that the legal precedent demanded. It provides a clear, albeit paid, path for users to exercise the right O’Carroll fought for.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which had long advocated for this right, has endorsed the subscription model as a valid fulfillment of Meta’s legal obligations. It sees the choice between a free, ad-supported service and a paid, ad-free one as compliant with UK law.
While this solution works in the UK, it’s worth noting that the EU’s legal framework has led to a different conclusion. There, regulators deemed the paid opt-out illegal, highlighting how different legal interpretations on either side of the Channel are shaping the future of the internet. The subscription you see today is a direct echo of that UK court case.