noyb study finds users prefer non-tracking options when genuinely available
A new study commissioned by noyb examines how people navigate “pay or okay” consent models and whether these systems provide a genuine choice. The research finds that most users reject tracking in principle but accept it when no alternative is provided. When a non-tracking, ad-supported option is introduced, users overwhelmingly shift toward it, indicating that current consent structures do not reflect their actual preferences and raise questions about the voluntariness of consent under EU da
Sources
noyb has published a new study examining how users navigate ‘pay or okay’ models, a consent framework increasingly adopted by media companies to justify pervasive tracking. The report examines whether these models provide a meaningful choice under EU data protection law and what users actually prefer when presented with different access conditions. Drawing on an online experiment with 510 participants in Austria, the study provides empirical insights into attitudes toward tracking, willingness to pay, and the effect of introducing a third non-tracking option with general advertising.
The findings show a persistent disconnect between user preferences and the design of prevailing consent systems. Most participants reject the collection and analysis of their personal data, yet the majority still opt for the established free-with-tracking model when no alternative exists. The study demonstrates that this outcome is driven less by genuine preference and more by the absence of a viable non-tracking option. When a free alternative with non-personalised advertising is introduced, users overwhelmingly choose it, and the likelihood of selecting the tracking-based option drops sharply. This pattern holds across different media contexts, including news outlets, social media platforms, and other online services, suggesting that the structure of the choice itself, rather than the type of content, is the determining factor.
The report also explores expectations around subscription pricing. While most participants consider any cost unreasonable for avoiding tracking, those who do name a price typically estimate a low amount. Their estimates decrease further once informed of the relatively small advertising revenues associated with individual users. Only a small minority expresses interest in paying for privacy, and existing subscribers tend to select higher amounts, reflecting familiarity with current market pricing. Socioeconomic factors, such as income and education, show some correlation with willingness to pay; however, overall readiness to purchase privacy remains limited.
Overall, the study suggests that ‘pay or okay’ models do not reflect actual user preferences and raise questions about the voluntariness of consent under the GDPR. The findings indicate that when offered a meaningful non-tracking option, most people choose it, reinforcing the argument that current consent structures steer users toward tracking rather than enabling free choice. The report concludes that adding a third, non-tracking, ad-supported option better aligns with users’ stated expectations regarding privacy and access to online content
