[Enforcement library](/enforcement)

# Meta consent or pay (UK): the ICO's position, not an enforcement action

After ICO engagement, Meta moved UK users to a choice between consenting to personalised ads and paying for no ads. The ICO welcomed the change and will monitor it. No enforcement action was taken.

## Key facts

- **Regulator or court:** ICO
- **Jurisdiction:** United Kingdom
- **Framework:** UK GDPR consent; ICO consent or pay guidance
- **Record date:** 2025-09-26
- **Procedural status:** Regulator statement; no enforcement action

The ICO said targeting ads under Meta's standard terms was not in line with UK law, then welcomed Meta's switch to consent or pay. There was no fine, order or formal finding.

ICO · UK GDPR · Statement 26 September 2025

- The problem
- Case record
- What the regulator said
- Technical issue
- Timeline
- Outcome
- What it cost
- Why it matters
- How Inth catches this
- Checks for your own systems
- Sources and limits

## The problem

Facebook and Instagram used to show UK users targeted ads as part of their standard terms. The ICO told Meta that was not in line with UK law. Meta changed course: UK users now choose between consenting to personalised ads and paying a monthly subscription for no ads. This page records a regulator's view, not a decision against Meta.

## Case record

| Field | Record |
| --- | --- |
| Regulator | Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) |
| Organisation | Meta (Facebook and Instagram) |
| Action | Public statement, 26 September 2025, after engagement with Meta |
| Law | UK GDPR consent; ICO guidance on consent or pay |
| Stage | No enforcement action. The ICO says it will monitor the roll-out |

## What the regulator said

These are statements of the ICO's view in its [26 September 2025 statement](https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2025/09/ico-statement-on-changes-to-meta-advertising-model/). They are not findings made in a formal decision.

- Targeting users with ads as part of the standard terms for Facebook and Instagram is something the ICO has "been clear is not in line with UK law".
- During the ICO's engagement, Meta "significantly lowered" the starting subscription price, so UK users can subscribe at a price "close to half that of EU users".
- Meta "has taken steps to address its non-compliance" and responded to the ICO's request that the price give a fair choice.
- The ICO expects Meta to assess the impact, including the choices users make. It will monitor consent or pay models more widely so that people "are able to give their consent freely".

## Technical issue

**Inth's technical interpretation:** consent or pay moves the lawful basis for ad targeting from the terms of service to a separate consent choice. Whether that consent is free depends on the price and on how the choice is shown, which is why the ICO focused on both. The [ICO's consent or pay guidance](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/about-this-guidance/) sets out what it looks at.

## Timeline

| Date | Event |
| --- | --- |
| January 2025 | ICO publishes guidance on consent or pay models |
| 26 September 2025 | ICO statement welcoming Meta's change |

## Outcome

No enforcement action. The ICO issued no fine, reprimand or order, and made no formal finding. It says it will keep monitoring.

## What it cost

Nothing in penalties. Meta changed its UK model and lowered its proposed subscription price.

## Why it matters

The statement shows the ICO's view that targeted advertising needs consent, not a clause in the terms, and that a paid alternative is acceptable only if the price leaves a fair choice. It is a position, not a precedent. Read it alongside [O'Carroll v Meta](/enforcement/ocarroll-v-meta), where the ICO said targeted ads are direct marketing.

## How Inth catches this

- **Consent banner:** under the EU opt-in policy, optional tags wait until the visitor chooses, and Accept and Reject get the same weight by default.
- **Evidence:** consent records show each visitor's choice, country and policy.

Inth does not set prices or judge whether a subscription offer is fair. In-product settings and sign-up screens are outside the banner.

## Checks for your own systems

### In the repository

- Check whether any ad personalisation runs on the basis of accepted terms rather than a recorded consent.

### In the browser and network

- If you offer a paid option, check that choosing it actually stops ad tracking requests.

### With the people responsible

- Read the ICO consent or pay guidance before setting a price or wording the choice.

## Sources and limits

- [ICO statement, 26 September 2025](https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2025/09/ico-statement-on-changes-to-meta-advertising-model/)
- [ICO guidance on consent or pay](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/about-this-guidance/)

Source review: 20 October 2026. This page describes a regulator statement. It is not an enforcement decision and does not audit Meta's current systems. Inth wrote the technical checks; they cannot decide which laws apply or prove compliance.

Related: [O'Carroll v Meta](/enforcement/ocarroll-v-meta), [Bundeskartellamt v Meta](/enforcement/bundeskartellamt-meta), [Meta (EU)](/enforcement/meta-eu)