"I will never pay for this" Perception of fairness and factors affecting behaviour on 'pay-or-ok' models

Abstract

The rise of cookie paywalls ('pay-or-ok' models) has prompted growing debates around the right to privacy and data protection, monetisation, and the legitimacy of user consent. Despite their increasing use across sectors, limited research has explored how users perceive these models or what shapes their decisions to either consent to tracking or pay. To address this gap, we conducted four focus groups (n= 14) to examine users' perceptions of cookie paywalls, their judgments of fairness, and the conditions under which they might consider paying, alongside a legal analysis within the EU data protection legal framework. Participants primarily viewed cookie paywalls as profit-driven, with fairness perceptions varying depending on factors such as the presence of a third option beyond consent or payment, transparency of data practices, and the authenticity or exclusivity of the paid content. Participants voiced expectations for greater transparency, meaningful control over data collection, and less coercive alternatives, such as contextual advertising or "reject all" buttons. Although some conditions, including trusted providers, exclusive content, and reasonable pricing, could make participants consider paying, most expressed reluctance or unwillingness to do so. Crucially, our findings raise concerns about economic exclusion, where privacy and data protection might end up becoming a privilege rather than fundamental rights. Consent given under financial pressure may not meet the standard of being freely given, as required by the GDPR. To address these concerns, we recommend user-centred approaches that enhance transparency, reduce coercion, ensure the value of paid content, and explore inclusive alternatives. These measures are essential for supporting fairness, meaningful choice, and user autonomy in consent-driven digital environments.